LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


OF" 


Mrs.  SARAH  P.  WALSWORTH. 

Received  October,  1894. 
Accessions  No .  A"*y i_LL*~l.      Class  No . 


148  Clay  st. 
i^an  Francisco. 


' 


* ,       * 


I 


THE 


VARIATIONS  OF  POPERY. 


BY 


,  D.D. 


\   '(  ' 


A  NEW  EDITION, 


CORRECTED    AND    ENLARGED    BT    THE    AUTHOR. 


REVISED   BY   THOMAS   0.   SUMMERS,   D.D. 


PUBLISHED  BY  E.  STEVENSON  AND  F.  A.  OWEN,  AGENTS, 

FOR  THE   METHODIST   EPISCOPAL   CHURCH,    SOUTH. 

1855. 


INTRODUCTORY  NOTE. 


THIS  masterly  work  is  so  well  known,  and  occupies  so  high  a  place  in 
polemical  theology,  that  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  prefix  to  this  new  edi- 
tion a  commendatory  Introduction.  One  feels  inclined  to  thank  Bossuet 
for  writing  his  sophistical  "  Variations  of  Protestantism,"  as  it  suggested 
the  idea  which  is  so  finely  drawn  out  in  "  The  Variations  of  Popery/' 
The  reader  will  find  this  work  full  of  learning,  logic,  satire,  and  wit — 
in  a  word,  absolutely  unanswerable.  It  is  a  library  in  itself.  It  waa 
carefully  revised,  corrected,  and  enlarged  by  the  late  learned  and  ven- 
erable author,  shortly  before  his  death.  It  was  dedicated  by  him,  "with 
profound  gratitude  and  respect,  to  his  Grace  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Ar- 
magh, Primate  and  Metropolitan  of  all  Ireland."  Without  endorsing 
every  paragraph  in  the  book  —  as  the  author  did  not  view  every  point 
from  our  position  —  we  recommend  it  as  one  of  the  ablest  defences  of 
Protestantism  and  most  demolishing  refutations  of  Popery  in  the  English 
language.  It  ought  to  have  a  universal  circulation. 

THOMAS  0.  SUMMERS. 
NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  Sept.  26, 1855. 


PREFACE. 


THE  Popish  and  Protestant  controversy,  in  the  present  age,  has, 
in  these  kingdoms,  been  agitated  with  ardor  and  ability.  The 
debate,  in  the  end  of  the  last  century,  seemed  to  slumber.  The 
polemics  of  each  party,  satisfied  with  the  unrestricted  enjoyment 
of  their  own  opinions,  appeared,  for  a  time,  to  drop  the  pen  of 
discussion,  dismiss  the  weapons  of  hostility,  and  leave  men, 
according  to  their  several  predilections,  to  the  undisputed  pos- 
session of  Popery  or  Protestantism.  But  stillness  frequently 
ushers  in  the  tempest.  The  calm,  amid  the  serenity  of  sea  and 
sky,  is  often  the  harbinger  of  the  storm.  This  diversity,  in  late 
years,  has  been  exemplified  in  the  controversial  world.  The 
polemical  pen,  which,  in  the  British  dominions,  had  slept  in  inac- 
tivity, has  resumed  its  labours,  and  the  clerical  voice,  which  had 
been  engaged  in  the  sober  delivery  of  sermons,  has,  in  the  passing 
day,  been  strained  to  the  loud  accents  of  controversial  theology. 
Ireland,  in  a  particular  manner,  has  become  the  field  of  noisy 
disputation.  The  clergy  in  advocacy  of  Popery  or  Protestant- 
ism, have  displayed  all  their  learning  and  eloquence.  A  society 
for  promoting  the  principles  of  the  Reformation,  has  been  estab- 
lished through  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland;  and  this  asso- 
ciation has  awakened  a  conflicting  reaction,  and  blown  into 
vivid  combustion  all  the  elements  of  papal  opposition. 

These  discussions  commenced  with  the  Reformation.  Con- 
tests of  a  similar  kind,  indeed,  had  preceded  that  revolution, 
and  may  be  traced  to  the  introduction  of  Christianity.  The  in- 
spired heralds  of  the  Gospel  raised  the  voice,  and  wielded  the 
pen  against  Judaism  and  infidelity.  Popery  carried  on  a  per- 
petual war  against  Nestorianism,  Monophysitism,  and  other 
oriental  speculations.  The  papacy,  in  European  nations,  ar- 
rayed itself  against  Waldensianism  ;  and  opposed  powei  and 
persecution  to  truth  and  reason.  The  inquisition  erected  the 
dungeon  and  the  gibbet,  for  the  support  of  error  and  supersti- 
tion, and  for  the  extinction  of  light  and  liberty.  Wickliff  and 
his  followers  in  England  wielded  reason  and  revelation  against 
superstition  and  persecution,  till  they  were  nearly  exterminated 
by  the  sword,  the  flames,  and  the  gibbet. 

Protestantism,  at  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  began  its  attacK 
on  popery  in  more  auspicious  circumstances  and  on  a  wider 


VI  PREFACE. 


field  of  action.  Philosophy  and  literature,  which  had  been  dif* 
fused  through  the  nations  by  the  art  of  printing,  the  progress  of 
society,  and  the  march  of  intellect,  facilitated  the  grand  project 
The  European  kingdoms,  therefore,  in  one  simultaneous  move- 
ment, seemed  to  awaken  from  their  apathy.  The  scintillations 
of  reformation,  which  flashed  in  Germany  and  Switzerland, 
radiated  from  the  Mediterranean  to  the  Northern  Ocean,  and 
from  the  bay  of  Biscay  to  the  Black  Sea;  and  Europeans, 
aroused  by  its  influence,  hailed  the  bright  light,  shook  off  their 
gloomy  errors,  and  rising  in  moral  and  intellectual  strength, 
burst  the  fetters  of  superstition. 

Luther  and  Melancthon  in  Germany,  supported  Protestant- 
ism, in  verbal  and  written  discussions,  against  Tetzel,  Eckius, 
Prierio,  Cajetan,  and  Miltitz.  Luther,  in  apostolical  fearless- 
ness, which  never  trembled  at  danger  or  shrank  from  difficulty, 
assailed  the  papacy  with  zeal  and  inflexibility.  His  shafts, 
though  sometimes  unpolished,  were  always  pointed ;  and  his 
sarcasms,  suited  to  his  age  and  language,  might,  in  a  few  in- 
stances, degenerate  into  coarseness  or  even  scurrility.  Melanc- 
thon, in  all  his  engagements,  evinced  ability,  learning,  candour, 
mildness,  and  moderation.  His  erudition  occupied  a  vast 
range ;  and  the  mighty  mass  of  literary  attainments  was  directed 
by  taste  and  inspired  by  genius.  Their  united  advocacy  re- 
pelled error,  dislodged  the  enemy  from  his  deepest  entrenchments, 
and  established  Lutheranism  through  the  circles  of  Germany. 
The  light  soon  communicated  to  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Nor- 
way. Gustavus,  king  of  Sweden,  countenanced  a  disputation 
between  Olaus  and  Gallius,  and  the  result,  which  was  the 
triumph  of  Protestantism,  tended  to  the  extension  of  the  Reform- 
ation. 

Zuinglius,  Bucer,  Calvin,  and  Beza,  attacked  the  Romish 
superstition  in  France  and  Switzerland.  The  attack  was  met 
with  great  resolution  by  the  patrons  of  popery.  This  opposi- 
tion, however,  neither  dispirited  the  friends  of  reformation  nor 
prevented  their  success.  Many,  on  the  Continent  deserted  the 
ranks  of  error ;  and  the  shock  soon  reached  the  British  islands. 
England  and  Scotland,  as  well  as  many  in  Ireland,  threw  off 
the  yoke  of  superstition  and  embraced  the  liberty  of  the  Gospel. 

Many,  however,  prostituted  learning  and  ability,  in  defending 
the  old  superstition ;  none  of  whom  made  a  more  distinguished 
figure  than  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  and  Bossuet.  Baronius  com- 
piled the  annals  of  the  papacy ;  and,  in  the  relation,  interwove 
his  errors  and  sophistry.  His  Annals,  comprising  a  vast  collec- 
tion, are  full  of  error  and  misrepresentation,  and  void  of  all  can- 
dour or  even  honesty.  Bellarmine  possessed  far  mo~?  candour 


PREFACE.  Vil 


than  JBaronius.  He  stated  the  reasons  and  objections  of  the 
reformed  with  fidelity.  His  integrity,  in  this  respect,  exposed 
him  to  the  censure  of  several  theologians  of  his  own  communion. 
His  merit,  as  a  writer,  consisted  in  perspicuity  of  style  and 
copiousness  of  argument,  which  discovered  a  fertile  and  excur- 
sive imagination. 

Bossuet,  in  his  Exposition,  affected  plainness  and  simplicity ; 
and  endeavoured  to  evade  objections  by  ingenuity  of  statement 
He  labored  to  divest  Romanism  of  its  hatefulness,  by  concealing, 
as  much  as  possible,  its  defects,  softening  its  harshness,  and  sub- 
stituting, in  many  instances,  an  imposing  but  supposititious  form 
and  beauty.  The  expositor,  by  these  means,  approximated 
Popery  to  Protestantism.  *  The  ten-horned  monster,'  says 
Gibbon,  « is,  at  his  magic  touch,  transformed  into  the  milk-white 
hind,  which  must  be  loved  as  soon  as  she  is  seen.'  The  school, 
in  which  Bossuet  studied,  favoured  the  design.  The  French 
communion,  to  which  he  belonged,  presents  Romanism  in  a 
more  engaging  attitude  than  the  Italian  system,  which  exhibits 
Popery,  as  it  appears  in  Baronius  and  Bellarmine,  in  all  its 
native  deformity. 

Few  have  made  a  better  defence  for  a  bad  cause,  than  Chal- 
lenor  and  Gother.  Challenor  assumes  a  tone  of  pity  for  his 
adversary,  and  represents  the  patrons  of  Protestantism  as  ob- 
jects of  compassion.  He  appears  all  kindness  and  candour. 
But  the  snake  is  hid  in  the  grass  ;  and  the  canker-worm  of  bit- 
terness lurks  under  the  fairest  professions  of  commiseration  and 
benevolence.  His  statements,  in  general,  are  misrepresenta- 
tions, and  his  quotations,  especially  from  the  fathers,  are  irrele- 
vant and  futile.  His  work,  nevertheless,  contains  nearly  all 
that  can  be  said  for  a  bad  system. 

Gother  speaks  in  the  lofty  accents  of  indignation  and  defi- 
ance. Swelling  into  an  air  of  conscious  superiority,  he  arro- 
gates the  attitude  of  truth  and  certainty.  Popery,  he  repre- 
sents as  rejected  only  when  misunderstood  ;  and  insinuates,  in 
unassembled  remonstrance  and  reprehension,  the  disingenuous- 
ness  of  the  patrons  of  Protestantism.  He  imitates  Bossuet,  in 
attempting  to  remove  objections  by  dexterity  of  statement,  and 
by  dismissing  the  Ultraism  of  the  Italian  school  and  of  genuine 
Romanism.  His  manner,  however,  is  striking,  and  his  columns 
of  representation  and  misrepresentation,  possess  advantage  and 
originality. 

England,  on  this,  as  on  every  other  topic  of  theology,  pro- 
duced many  distinguished  authors.  Jewel,  Cartwright,  Stilling- 
fleet,  and  Barrow,  among  a  crowd  of  others,  appear  eminent  for 
their  learning  and  industry.  Jewel's  reply  to  Harding,  though 


VI11  PREFACE. 


published  shortly  after  the  Reformation,  is  a  most  triumphant 
refutation  of  Popish  errors.  Cartwright  appeared  in  the  arena, 
as  the  victorious  adversary  of  the  Rhemish  translators  and  an- 
notators.  Stillingfleet,  in  his  numerous  works,  has  written  on 
nearly  all  the  topics  of  distinction  between  the  Romish  and  Re- 
formed ;  and  on  each,  has  displayed  vast  stores  of  erudition,  and 
amazing  powers  of  discrimination.  Barrow  assailed  the  papal 
supremacy ;  while  the  depth  of  his  learning,  and  the  extent  of 
his  genius,  enabled  him  to  exhaust  the  subject.  He  has  col- 
lected and  arranged  almost  all  that  has  been  said  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Roman  pontiff's  ecclesiastical  sovereignty. 

Ireland,  in  her  Usher,  boasts  of  a  champion,  who,  in  this  con- 
troversy, was  in  himself  an  host.  He  had  read  all  the  Fathers, 
and  could  draw  at  will,  on  these  depots  of  antiquity.  He  pos- 
sessed the  deepest  acquaintance  with  sacred  literature  and  ec- 
clesiastical history.  The  mass  of  his  collections  has,  since  his 
day,  supplied  the  pen  of  many  a  needy,  but  thankless  plagiary. 
His  age  was  an  era  of  discussion  ;  and,  in  his  occasional  works, 
he  pointed  his  polemical  artillery  against  the  various  errors  of 
Popery.  All  these  errors  are,  in  a  compendious  review,  dis- 
sected and  exposed,  in  his  answer  to  an  Irish  Jesuit,  which 
may  be  considered  as  a  condensation  of  all  his  arguments 
against  the  Romish  superstition.  The  reply  was  his  heavy 
artillery,  which,  like  a  skilful  general,  he  brought  forward 
against  his  most  formidable  enemy,  whilst  the  superiority  of 
his  tactics  and  position  enabled  him  to  sweep  the  field. 

The  passing  century  has  produced  many  firm  disputants,  on 
each  side  of  the  question.  The  popish  cause  in  England,  has 
been  sustained,  but  with  a  feeble  hand,  by  Milner,  Butler,  and 
the  notorious  Cobbett.  These,  again,  have  been  opposed  by 
Southey,  Phillpotts,  Townsend,  and  M'Gavin.  Milner's  End 
of  Controversy,  affected  in  title  and  weak  in  argument,  is  one 
of  the  silliest  productions  that  ever  gained  popularity.  He 
affects  citing  the  Fathers,  whom  he  either  never  read,  or  design- 
edly misrepresents.  His  chief  resources,  indeed,  are  misstfcte- 
ment  and  misquotation.  His  logic  consists  in  bold  assertion 
and  noisy  bravado.  His  publication,  which  was  to  end  contro- 
versy, has  been  answered  by  Grier,  Digby,  and,  in  many  occa- 
sional animadversions,  by  M'Gavin. 

Butler,  imitating  the  insinuating  and  imposing  manner  of 
Bossuet,  affects  plainness  and  simplicity ;  and  represents  the 
repulsive  and  rnis-shapen  form  of  Romanism  in  the  most  enga- 
ging point  of  view.  He  replied  to  Southey 's  Book  of  the 
Church.  Phillpotts,  again,  in  a  letter,  and  Townsend,  in  his 
Accusations  of  History,  answered  Butler,  who,  in  return, 


PREFACE.  IX 

addressed  his  Vindication  to  Townsend.  in  reply  to  the  Accusa- 
tions of  the  latter.  The  detects  of  these  authors,  in  general,  is 
the  want  of  facts  and  authorities,  though,  in  many  respects, 
they  discover  research  and  ability. 

Cobbett's  History  of  the  Reformation  is  one  continued  tissue 
of  undisguised  falsehood,  collected,  not  from  the  records  of  time, 
but  from  the  copious  stores  of  his  own  invention.  Truth  itself, 
indeed,  if  found  accidentally  in  the  pages  of  Cobbett,  loses  its 
character ;  and,  like  a  good  man  seen  in  bad  company,  becomes 
suspected.  His  calumny,  (for  his  fabrications  deserve  no  bet- 
ter name,)  has  been  exposed,  with  admirable  precision,  by 
M'Gavin  of  Glasgow  in  his  Vindication  of  the  Reformation. 
The  Scottish  Vindicator's  treatment  of  the  English  Fabricator 
is  truly  amusing.  He  handles,  turns,  anatomizes,  and  exposes 
the  slippery  changeling,  with  a  facility  which  astonishes,  and 
with  an  effect  which  always  entertains.  Ah1  the  English  au- 
thor's accustomed  transformations  cannot  enable  him  to  elude 
the  unmerciful  grasp  of  the  Scotchman,  who  seizes  him  in  all 
his  varying  shapes,  pursues  him  through  ah1  his  mazy  windings, 
and  exhibits  his  deformity  in  ah1  its  loathsomeness,  till  he  be- 
comes the  object  of  derision  and  disgust.  M'Gavin's  dissection 
of  the  calumniator  shews,  in  a  striking  point  of  view,  the  supe- 
riority of  sense  and  honesty  over  misrepresentation  and  effront- 
ery. This  author,  in  his  Protestant,  seems,  indeed,  not  to  have 
been  deeply  read  in  the  Fathers  or  in  Christian  antiquity ;  but 
he  possesses  sense  and  discrimination,  which  triumphed  over 
the  sophisms  and  misconstructions  of  the  adversary. 

Ireland,  at  the  present  day,  has,  on  these  topics,  produced  its 
full  quota  of  controversy.  The  field  has  been  taken,  for  Ro- 
manism, by  Doyle,  Kinsella,  Maguire,  and  a  few  others  of  the 
same  class.  The  Popish  prelacy,  who  were  questioned  before 
the  Parliamentary  Committees  in  London,  displayed  superior 
tact  and  information.  Their  answers  exhibited  great  talents 
for  evasion.  Crotty,  Anglade,  Slevin,  Mac  Hale,  Kenny,  Hig- 
gins,  Kelly,  Curtis,  Murray,  and  LafFan,  evinced  at  least  equal 
cleverness  at  Maynooth,  before  the  commissioners  of  Irish  edu- 
cation. These  are  certainly  most  accomplished  sophists,  and 
practised  in  the  arts  of  Jesuitism.  The  Maynooth  examination 
"  was  conducted  with  great  ability,  and  the  answers  which  were 
elicited,  excel  in  the  evasion  of  difficulty,  the  advocacy  of  error, 
and  the  glossing  of  absurdity. 

The  battle  for  Protestantism  has  been  fought,  with  more  or 
less  success,  by  Ouseley,  Digby,  Grier,  Jackson,  Pope,  Phelan, 
Elrington,  Stuart,  and  a  few  other  champions  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. Stuart's  work  is  entitled  to  particular  attention.  The 


PREFACE. 


author  is  a  learned  layman,  who  has  directed  the  energies  of  a 
powerful  mind  to  subjects  of  theology.  The  literary  produc- 
tions of  Newton,  Locke,  Milton,  and  Addison  in  favour  of  re- 
vealed religion,  were  enhanced  in  their  value  from  their  authors, 
who  belonged  to  the  laity.  The  clergy,  on  topics  of  divinity, 
are  supposed,  in  some  degree,  to  be  influenced  by  interest  or 
prepossession.  The  laity,  on  the  contrary,  are  reckoned  to  ap- 
proach these  discussions,  with  minds  unfettered  by  considera- 
tions of  a  professional  or  mercenary  kind.  The  Protestant  lay- 
man is  entitled  to  all  the  regard  which  this  circumstance  can 
confer.  But  Stuart's  work  possesses  merit,  fa.r  superior  to  any 
thing  of  an  adventitious  description.  The  author's  disquisitions 
embrace  all  the  questions  of  controversy,  which  have  been 
agitated  between  the  Romish  and  Reformed.  The  statements 
are  clear,  and  the  arguments  conclusive.  The  facts,  which  he 
interweaves  in  the  work,  are  numerous,  and  his  references  are 
correct.  The  author  introduces  many  of  the  transactions,  which 
are  recorded  in  ecclesiastical  history  and  which  have  appeared 
on  the  public  theatre  of  the  world :  while  his  observations  on 
men  and  their  actions  are  distinguished  by  that  freedom,  which 
always  characterizes  an  original  and  independent  thinker. 

The  works  on  the  Romish  and  Reformed  controversy,  which 
are  numerous  and  executed  with  ability,  might  be  supposed  to 
supersede  any  further  attempt.  The  number  and  excellence  of 
former  publications  on  this  subject  may,  in  the  opinion  of  many, 
render  any  future  production  unnecessary.  The  authors,  in- 
deed, who  have  opposed  the  superstition  of  Romanism,  have 
been  many  and  their  labours  triumphant.  But  the  4  Variations 
of  Popery'  differs,  in  several  respects,  from  preceding  works. 
The  author's  plan,  so  far  as  he  knows,  has  not  been  anticipated, 
and  will,  in  the  execution,  display  considerable  novelty  of  design. 

The  attack,  in  this  essay,  is  directed  against  the  pretended 
unity,  antiquity,  and  immutability  of  Romanism.  These  have 
long  been  the  enemy's  proud,  but  empty  boast.  Catholicism, 
according  to  its  abettors,  is  as  old  as  the  year  of  our  redemp- 
tion ;  was  derived  from  the  Messiah,  published  by  the  Apostles, 
taught  by  the  Fathers,  and  is  professed,  in  the  popish  commu- 
nion of  the  present  day,  without  addition,  diminution,  or  change. 
The  design  of  this  work  is  to  shew  the  groundlessness  of  such  a 
claim.  The  subject  is  the  diversity  of  doctors,  popes,  and  coun- 
cils among  themselves  ;  with  their  variations  from  the  apostles 
and  fathers ;  and  these  fluctuations  are  illustrated  by  the  history 
of  the  superstitions  which  have  destroyed  the  simplicity,  and 
deformed  the  beauty  of  genuine  Christianity. 

The  variety  of  opinions,  which  have  been  entertained   by 


PREFACE.  XI 

Romish  theologians,  constitutes  one  principal  topic  of  detail. 
Papists  have  differed  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  in 
tne  dogmas  of  religion,  as  widely  as  any  Protestants.  Doctors, 
pontiffs,  and  synods  have  maintained  jarring  statements,  and, 
in  consequence,  exchanged  reciprocal  anathemas.  The  spiritual 
artillery,  on  these  occasions,  was  always  brought  forward,  and 
carried,  not  indeed  death,  but  damnation  into  the  adverse  ranks. 
The  bayonet,  in  the  end,  was  often  employed  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  enforce  the  truth,  or,  at  least,  to  decide  the  victory. 
The  chief  of  these  contests  are  related  in  the  Variations  of 
Popery :  but  the  wranglings  of  obscure  theologians,  and  the 
lighter  shades  of  difference  among  authors  of  celebrity,  are 
omitted  as  tedious  and  uninteresting.  The  detail,  if  every 
minute  variation  were  recounted,  would  be  endless.  The  his- 
torian, indeed,  of  all  the  doctrinal  and  moral  alterations  of  mis- 
named Catholicism  would  write,  not  a  light  octavo,  but  many 
ponderous  folios,  which  would  require  much  unnecessary  time, 
labour,  expense,  and  patience.  The  work,  which  is  now  offered 
to  the  world,  will,  it  is  presumed,  be  sufficient  in  quantity, 
whatever  may  be  its  quality,  to  gratify  the  curiosity  of  the 
reader,  and  answer  the  end  of  its  publication. 

Popish  variations  from  the  Apostles  and  Fathers  also  claim 
a  place  in  this  work.  The  Romish  system  is  shewn  to  possess 
neither  Scriptural  nor  Traditional  authority.  This,  in  one  re- 
spect, will  evince  the  disagreement  of  Papists  with  each  other. 
These  claim  the  inspired  and  ecclesiastical  writers  of  antiquity, 
and  appeal  to  their  works,  which,  in  the  Romish  account,  are, 
in  doctrine,  popish,  and  not  protestant.  The  sacred  canon  is, 
by  the  opponents  of  protestantism,  acknowledged,  and,  which 
is  no  easy  task,  is  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Fathers.  A  display  of  their  variations  from  these 
standards,  which  papists  recognize,  will,  in  one  way,  evince 
their  disagreement  among  themselves,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
overthrow  their  pretensions  to  antiquity. 

The  history  of  papal  superstitions  traces  the  introduction  of 
these  innovations  into  Christendom.  The  annals  of  these  opin- 
ions, teaching  their  recession  from  primeval  simplicity,  will  also 
shew  the  time  and  occasion  of  their  adoption.  The  steps  which 
led  to  their  reception  are  carefully  marked ;  and  these  additions 
to  early  Christianity  will  appear  to  be  the  inventions  of  men. 
Their  commencement  was  small  and  their  growth  gradual. 
The  Alpine  snow-ball,  which  rolls  down  the  mountain,  is  at 
first  trifling;  but  accumulates  as  it  sweeps  the  lofty  range  of 
steeps,  till,  at  length,  the  mighty  mass,  resistless  in  its  course, 
appals  the  spectator,  mocks  opposition,  and  overwhelms  in  ruin 


XJi  PREFACE. 

the  vineyard,  the  village,  or  the  city.  Superstition,  in  like 
manner,  unperceived  in  the  beginning,  augments  in  its  progress. 
The  fancy,  the  fears,  or  the  interests  of  men  supply  continual 
accessions,  till  the  frowning  monster  affrights  the  mind  and  op- 
presses the  conscience.  Such  was  the  rise  and  progress  of 
Itomanism.  A  religion,  boasting  unchangeableness,  received 
continual  accretions  of  superstition  and  absurdity,  till  it  became 
a  heterogeneous  composition  of  Gentilism  and  Christianity, 
united  to  many  abominations,  unknown  in  the  annals  of  my- 
thology and  paganism.  The  history  of  these  innovations  will 
expose  their  novelty,  and  discover  their  aberrations  from  the 
original  simplicity  of  the  Gospel. 

Popery,  in  its  growth  from  infancy  to  maturity,  occupied  all 
the  lengthened  period  from  the  age  of  the  Apostles  till  the  last 
Lateran  Council.  This  includes  the  long  lapse  of  time  from 
Paul  of  Tarsus  to  Leo  the  Tenth.  Paul  saw  the  incipient 
workings  of  '  the  Mystery  of  Iniquity.1  The  twilight  then  be- 
gan, which  advanced  in  slow  progress,  to  midnight  darkness. 
Superstition,  which  is  so  congenial  with  the  human  mind,  was 
added  to  superstition,  and  absurdity  to  absurdity.  Filth  col- 
lected. The  Roman  hierarchs,  amidst  alternate  success  and 
defeat,  struggled  hard  for  civil  and  ecclesiastical  sovereignty. 
Leo,  Gregory,  Innocent,  and  Boniface,  in  their  several  days, 
advanced  the  papacy,  on  the  ruins  of  episcopacy  and  royalty, 
bishops  and  kings.  These  celebrated  pontiffs  augmented  the 
papal  authority,  and  encroached  on  prelatic  and  regal  power. 

Leo  the  Tenth,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  saw  the  mighty  plan 
completed.  The  Lateran  Assembly,  under  his  presidency, 
conferred  on  the  pope  a  full  authority  over  all  councils,  which, 
in  consequence  of  this  synodal  decision,  he  was  vested  with  the 
arbitrary  power  of  convoking,  transferring,  and  dissolving  at 
pleasure.1  This  concession  subjected  synodal  aristocracv  to 
pontifical  despotism ;  and,  in  consequence,  extinguished  all 
episcopal  freedom.  The  same  convention  embodied,  in  its  nets, 
the  bull  of  Boniface  the  Eighth  against  Philip  the  French  king.2 
This  transaction  subjugated  royal  prerogative  and  popular  privi- 
lege to  pontifical  tyranny.  The  synod  had  only  to  advance 
another  step,  and  the  work  of  wickedness  was  consummated. 
This  was  soon  effected.  The  infallible  bishops  addressed  the 
infallible  pontiff  as  God.3  The  successor  of  the  Galilean  fish- 
erman was  represented  as  a  Terrestrial  Deity ;  while  he  re- 
"Ved  with  complacency  and  without  reluctance,  the  appella- 

i  Du  Pin.  3.  148.     Crabb,  3.  696.  '  Du  Tin  3.  148. 

3  Deus  in  Terris.  Bin.  9.  54. 


PREFACE.  X1U 

tion  of  blasphemy.  Leo  then  fulfilled  the  prediction  of  Paul, 
and  *  as  God  shewed  himself  that  he  was  God.'  *  The  man  of 
sin,  the  son  of  perdition,'  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  with 
the  spirit  of  his  mouth  and  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of 
his  coming  was  revealed.'  Popery,  appalling  the  nations  with 
its  lurid  terrors,  stood  confessed  in  all  its  horrid  frightfulness 
and  deformity. 

But  the  age,  that  witnessed  the  maturity  of  Romanism,  be- 
held its  declension.  Leo,  who  presided  in  the  Lateran  council, 
saw  the  advances  of  Luther,  Zuinglius,  and  Calvin,  who  ush- 
ered in  the  Reformation.  The  God  of  the  Lateran  lost  the  half 
of  his  dominions  by  the  friar  of  Wittemberg,  the  canton  of 
Zurich,  and  the  pastor  of  Geneva.  Leo  lived  to  curse  Luther, 
and  view  whole  nations  rejecting  the  usurped  authority  of  the 
papacy.  Mystic  Babylon  must,  in  this  manner,  continue  to 
Fall,  till  at  last  it  shrink  and  disappear  before  the  light  of  the 
Gospel,  the  energy  of  truth,  and  the  predictions  of  heaven. 

This  work  is  designed  to  employ  against  popery,  the  argu- 
ment which  the  celebrated  Bossuet  wielded  with  ingenuity,  but 
without  success  against  protestantism.  The  reformers  disa- 
greed in  a  few  unimportant  points  of  divinity.  Their  disagree- 
ment, however,  was  rather  in  discipline  than  in  faith  or  morality. 
These  dissensions  the  slippery  Bossuet  collected ;  and  what 
was  wanting  in  fact,  he  supplied  from  the  fountain  of  his  own 
teeming  imagination.  The  discordancy,  partly  real  but  chiefly 
fanciful,  the  bishop  represented  as  inconsistent  with  truth  and 
demonstrative  of  falsehood.  The  Variations  of  Popery  are  in- 
tended to  retort  Bossuet' s  argument.  The  striking  diversity, 
exhibited  in  Romanism,  presents  a  wide  field  for  retaliation  and 
will  supply  copious  reprisals.  The  author  of  this  production, 
however,  would,  unlike  the  Romish  advocate,  adhere  to  facts 
and  avoid  the  Jesuitical  bishop's  misrepresentations. 

Bossuet's  design,  in  his  famous  work,  is  difficult  to  ascertain. 
He  was  a  man  of  discernment.  He  must  therefore  have  known, 
that  th^  weapon,  which  he  wielded  against  the  reformation, 
might  be  made  to  recoil  with  tremendous  effect  on  his  own  sys- 
tem. His  acquaintance  with  ecclesiastical  history  might  have 
informed  him,  that  the  variations  of  popery  were  a  thousand 
times  more  numerous  than  those  of  protestantism.  His  argu- 
ment, therefore,  is  much  stronger  against  himself  than  against 
his  adversary.  This,  one  would  think,  might  have  taught  the 
polemic,  for  his  own  sake,  to  spare  his  controversial  details. 

Bossuet's  argument  is,  in  another  respect,  more  injurious  to 
himself  than  to  the  enemy.  The  Romish  communion  claims 
infallibility.  The  reformed  prefer  no  such  ridiculous  preten- 


XIV  PREFACE. 

sion  :  and  might,  therefore,  differ  in  circumstantials  and  agree 
in  fundamentals,  might  err  and  return  to  the  truth.  These 
might  vary  and  survive  the  shock.  The  imputation  of  disso- 
nancy  to  such  is,  in  a  great  measure,  a  harmless  allegation. 
But  error,  or  change  in  a  communion,  claiming  inerrability  and 
unchangeability,  is  fatal.  Its  numerous  vacillations,  indeed,  in 
every  age,  destroy  ah1  its  pretensions  to  unity  and  immutability. 

The  authorities  in  this  work  are,  with  a  few  exceptions,  the 
Fathers  and  Romish  authors.  Protestant  historians  and  theo- 
logians are  seldom  quoted,  and  only  in  matters  of  minor  import- 
ance. Popish  professors  will,  with  more  readiness,  credit 
popish  doctors  ;  and  these  are  easily  supplied.  Many  annalists 
of  this  denomination  have,  even  on  subjects  connected  with  the 
honour  of  the  papacy,  shewn  a  candour  which  is  highly  praise- 
worthy. These  with  laudable  ingenuousness,  have  related 
facts ;  while  others,  indeed,  with  shameful  prevarication,  have 
dealt  in  fiction.  The  communion  which  produced  a  Baronius, 
a  Bellarmine,  a  Maimbourg,  and  a  Binius,  can  boast  of  a  Du 
Pin,  a  Giannone,  a  Thuanus,  a  Paolo,  and  a  Guicciardini. 

One  popish  author  is,  in  this  performance,  confuted  from 
another.  Theologian,  in  this  manner,  is  opposed  to  theologian, 
pope  to  pope,  and  council  to  council.  A  Launoy  and  a  Du  Pin 
supply  materials  for  a  refutation  of  a  Baronius  and  a  Bellar- 
mine. A  Paolo  will  often  correct  the  errors  of  a  Pallavincino , 
and  a  Du  Pin,  in  many  instances,  rectify  the  mistakes  of  a 
Binius.  Eugenius  condemned  and  excommunicated  what 
Nicholas  approved  and  confirmed.  Clement  and  Benedict,  in 
fine  style  and  with  great  devotion,  anathematized  Boniface, 
Innocent,  and  Gregory.  The  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and 
Basil  committed  direct  acts  of  hostility  on  those  of  Lyons,  Flor- 
ence, and  the  Lateran.  The  French  and  Italian  schools,  in 
the  war  of  opinion  and  theology,  conflict  in  determined  and 
diametrical  opposition.  The  Jesuit  and  the  Molinist  view  the 
Jansenistand  the  Dominican  as  professed  enemies.  The  facil- 
ity, indeed,  with  which  anyone  popish  divine  may  be  confuted 
from  another,  exhibits,  in  a  striking  point  of  view,  the  diversity 
of  Romanism.  A  protestant,  skilled  in  popish  doctors  and 
synods,  may  safely  undertake  the  refutation  of  any  papist  from 
writers  and  councils  of  his  adversary's  own  communion. 

This  work  makes  no  pretence  to  conceal  the  deformity  of 
Romanism.  The  author  disdains  to  dissemble  his  sentiments. 
Interested  for  the  good  of  his  fellow-men  of  every  persuasion, 
he  is  unacquainted  with  the  art  of  disguising  absurdity,  for  the 
low  purpose  of  flattering  its  partizans  or  obtaining  the  praise  of 
modern  liberalism.  He  knows  the  woe  pronounced  against  such  - 


PREFACE.  XV 

as  *  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness ;'  and  say, 
*  peace  !  peace  !  when  there  is  no  peace.'  He  intends,  in  the 
following  pages,  an  unmitigated  and  unrelenting  exposure  of 
antichristian  abominations.  He  would,  like  an  experienced 
surgeon,  examine  every  ailment,  probe  every  wound,  and  lay 
open,  without  shrinking  or  hesitation,  every  festering  sore.  He 
would  expose  the  moral  disorder,  in  all  its  hateful  and  haggard 
frightfulness,  to  the  full  gaze  of  a  disgusted  world.  This  he 
would  do,  not  to  give  pain  or  gratify  the  malignity  of  men ;  but 
to  heal  the  wound,  cure  the  disease,  prevent  the  spread  of  the 
distemper  or  infection,  and  restore  the  sufferer  to  health, 
strength,  and  activity.  He  would  teach  the  patient  the  malig- 
nancy of  his  complaint,  and  warn  the  spectator  to  flee  for  fear 
of  contagion.  The  medicine,  he  would,  like  the  skilful  physi- 
cian, suit  to  the  symptoms,  and  apply  caustic,  when  a  lotion 
would  be  ineffectual.  Ridicule  may  be  used,  when,  through 
the  perverseness  of  man  or  the  inveteracy  of  the  malady,  reason 
has  been  found  to  fail. 

Grateful  for  the  favourable  reception  given  to  the  first  editions 
of  this  work  (which  were  published  in  1831 — 8)  the  author  again 
offers  it  to  the  candid  acceptance  of  the  public,  carefully  revised, 
enlarged,  and  corrected  throughout.  He  feels  some  confidence, 
indeed,  in  the  materials  of  which  it  is  composed.  He  travelled 
a  long,  but  delightful  journey,  through  whole  files  of  authorities 
in  ancient  and  modern  languages ;  in  which,  during  his  progress, 
he  pillaged  the  pages  and  rifled  the  annals  of  Romish  and  Re- 
formed controversy.  These,  he  knows,  have  supplied  a  vast 
mass  of  matter,  which  he  has  endeavoured  to  condense.  But 
the  elements  of  information  are  valueless,  and  will  be  neglected, 
if  void  of  order  or  beauty.  A  body  without  a  soul  wants  attrac- 
tion. The  richest  colours  without  symmetry  and  expression, 
offend  the  eye  of  taste.  The  fairest  form,  if  destitute  of  anima- 
tion, is  unengaging.  A  book,  in  like  manner,  especially  in 
modern  days,  will  fail  to  interest  the  mind,  if  unaccompanied 
with  the  fascinations  of  life,  grace,  and  elegance.  Ideas  require 
to  be  arranged  and  animated,  in  order  to  form  a  useful  or  invit- 
ing composition ;  as  spirit  must  be  infused  into  the  passive  clay, 
to  produce  a  living,  moving,  breathing,  and  intellectual  man. 
The  author  is  aware  of  the  difference  between  a  learned  and 
a  popular  book.  He  invites  criticism.  Should  the  public  con- 
tinue to  smile  and  encourage  his  essay,  he  will  rejoice  in  its 
cavour :  but  if  otherwise,  he  will  acquiesce  in  its  decision. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION :  THE  UNITY  OF  PROTESTANTISM 

Harmony  of  the  Reformed  Confessions  of  Faith — Consubstantiation  of  Luther- 
anism — Popish  Diversity  on  Transubstantiation — Disciplinarian  Variety — Secta- 
rianism— Foolery  of  Romanism — Beata — Clara — Nativity — Flagellism — Convul- 
Bionarianism — Festival  of  the  Ass — Decision  of  a  Roman  Synod — Antiquity  of 
Protestantism — Protestant  Name — Protestant  Theology — Protestant  Churches — 
The  Waldensian — The  Greek — The  Nestorian — The  Monophysite — The  Arme- 
nian— The  Syrian.  Page  25 


CHAP.  II :  POPES. 


Difficulty  of  the  Pontifical  Succession — Historical  Variations — Electoral  Variations 
— Schisms  in  the  Papacy — -Liberius  and  Felix — Silverius  and  Vigilius — Formo- 
sus,  Sergius,  and  Stephen — Benedict,  Sylvester,  John,  and  Gregory — Great 
Western  Schism — Basilian  and  Florentine  Schism — Doctrinal  Variations — Victor 
— Stephen — Liberius,  Zozimus,  and  Hoiiorius — Vigilius — John — Moral  Variation* 
— State  of  the  Papacy — Theodora  and  Marozia — John — Boniface — Gregory — 
Boniface — John — Sixtus — Alexander — Julius — Leo — Perjured  Pontiffs.  68 


CHAP.  Ill :    COUNCILS. 


Three  Systems — Italian  System  reckons  the  General  Councils  at  eighteen — Tem- 
porary rejection  of  the  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  seventh,  and  twelfth  General 
Councils — Cisalpine  or  French  School  rejects  the  Councils  of  Lyons,  Florence, 
Lateran,  and  Trent — Adopts  those  of  Pisa,  Constance,  Basil,  and  the  second  of 
Pisa — System  of  a  third  party — Universality  of  General  Councils — Its  Conditions 
— Legality  of  General  Councils — Its  Conditions — Convocation,  Presidency,  and 
C  onfirmation — Members — Unanimity — Freedom.  1 23 

3 


XV1U  CONTENTS. 


CHAP.  IV:    SUPREMACY. 

Four  Variations — Pope's  Presidency — His  Sovereignty  or  Despotism — His  supposed 
Equality  with  God — His  alleged  Superiority  to  God — Scriptural  Proof — Tradi 
tional  Evidence — Original  state  of  the  Roman  Church — Causes  of  its  Primacy- 
Eminence  of  the  City — False  Decretals — Missions — Opposition  from  Asia,  Africa, 
France,  Spain,  England,  and  Ireland — Universal  Bishop — Usurpations  of  Nicho- 
las— John,  Gregory,  Innocent,  and  Boniface.  152 


CHAP.  V :    INFALLIBILITY. 

Pontifical  Infallibility — Its  Object,  Form,  and  Uncertainty — Synodal  Infallibility — 
Pontifical  and  Synodal  Infallibility — Ecclesiastical  Infallibility — Its  Absurdity- 
Its  Impossibility.  187 


CHAP.  VI :    DEPOSITION  OF  KINGS. 

French  System — Italian  System — Original  State  of  the  Christian  Commonwealth- 
Pontifical  Royalty — Attempts  at  Deposition  of  Kings — Gregory  and  Leo — Zach- 
ary  and  Childeric — Continental  Depositions — Gregory,  Clement,  Boniface,  and 
Julius  dethrone  Henry,  Lewis,  Philip,  and  Lewis — British  Depositions — Adrian 
transfers  Ireland  to  Henry — Innocent,  Paul,  and  Pius,  pronounce  sentence  of 
Degradation  against  John,  Henry,  and  Elizabeth — Synodal  Depositions — Council? 
of  the  Lateran,  Lyons,  Vienna,  Pisa,  Constance,  Basil,  Lateran,  and  Trent — 
Modern  Opinions — Effects  of  the  Reformation.  210 


CHAP.  VII :    PERSECUTION. 

Pretensions  of  the  Papacy— Three  Periods — First  Period;  Religious  Liberty- 
Second  Period;  Persecution  of  Paganism — Persecution  of  Heresy — Persecuting 
Kings,  Saints,  Theologians,  Popes,  and  Councils — Crusades  against  the  Albigen- 
ses — Inquisition — Third  Period ;  Persecuting  Doctors,  Popes,  Councils,  and  Kings 
— Persecutions  in  Germany,  Netherlands,  Spain,  France,  and  England — Diversity 
of  Systems — Popish  Disavowal  of  Persecution — Modern  Opinions.  239 


CHAP.  VIII :    INVALIDATION  OF  OATHS. 

Violation  of  Faith — Theologians,  Popes,  and  Councils — Pontifical  Maxims — Ponti 
fical  Actions — Councils  of  Rome  and  Diamper — Councils  of  the  Lateran,  Lyons, 
Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil. — Era  and  Influence  of  the  Reformation.  277 


CHAP.  IX:    ARIANISM. 

Trinitarianism  of  Antiquity — Origin  of  the  Arian  System — Alexandrian  and  Bithy- 
nian  Councils — Nicene  and  Tyrian  Councils — Semi-Arianism — Antiochian  and 
Roman  Councils — Sardican,  Artesian,  Milan,  and  Sirmian  Councils — Liberius — 
Felix — Armenian,  Seleucian,  and  Byzantine  Councils — State  of  Chrristendom — 
Variety  of  Confessions.  29{J 


CONTENTS.  XIX 


CHAP.  X :    EUTYCHIANISM. 

Eutychianism  a  verbal  Heresy — Its  prior  Existence — Byzantine  Council — Ephesian 
Council — Chalcedonian  Council — State  of  Monophysitism  after  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon — Zeno's  Henoticon — Variety  of  Opinions  on  that  edict — Jacobitism— 
Distracted  state  of  Christendom.  3 1 1 


CHAP.  XI :    MONOTHELITISM. 

Its  General  Reception — Supported  by  the  Roman  Emperor,  and  by  the  Antiochian, 
Alexandrian,  Byzantine,  and  Roman  Patriarchs — Its  degradation  from  Catholi- 
cism to  Heresy — The  Ecthesis  or  Exposition — The  Emperor  and  the  Greeks 
against  the  Pope  and  the  Latins — The  Type  or  Formulary — Second  Battle  be- 
tween the  Greeks  and  the  Latins — Second  Triumph  of  Monothelitism — Sixth 
General  Council — Total  Overthrow  of  Monothelitism — Its  partial  Revival — Its 
universal  and  final  Extinction.  339 


CHAP.  XII :    PELAGIANISM. 

Its  Author  and  Dissemination — Patronized  by  the  Asians — Opposed  by  the  Africans 
— Condemned  by  Innocent — Approved  by  Zozimus — Anathematized  by  Zozimus 
— Denounced  by  the  Asians — Censured  by  the  General  Council  of  Ephesus — De- 
clension of  Pelagianism — Controversy  in  the  ninth  Century — Gottescalcus 
against  Rabanus — The  Councils  of  Mentz  and  Quiercy  against  the  Councils  of  Va- 
lence and  Langres — Modern  Controversy — Council  of  Trent — Rhemish  Annota- 
tions— Dominicans  against  the  Molinist — Congregation  of  Helps — The  Jesuits 
against  the  Jansenists — Controversy  on  Quesnel's  Moral  Reflections.  554 


CHAP.  XIII :    TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

Variety  of  Opinions — Scriptural  and  Traditional  Arguments — Elements  accounted 
Signs,  Figures,  and  Emblems — Retained  their  own  Substance — Nourished  the 
Human  Body — Similar  Change  in  Baptism  and  Regeneration — Causes  which  facili- 
tated the  Introduction  of  Transubstantiation — History  of  Transubstantiation — 
Paschasius — Berengarius— Diversity  of  Opinions —  Diversity  of  Proofs — Absurdity 
of  Transubstantiation— Creation  of  the  Creator — Its  Cannibalism.  381 


CHAP.  XIV :     COMMUNION  IN  ONE  KIND. 

Its  Contrariety  to  Scriptural  Institution — Concessions — Arguments — Its  Contra- 
riety to  the  Usage  of  the  Early  and  Middle  Ages — Concessions — Its  Contrariety 
to  the  Custom  of  the  Oriental  Christians — Origin  of  Half-Communion — Councils 
of  Constance  and  Basil — Inconsistency  of  the  Constantian  and  Basilian  Canons — 
Inconsistency  of  the  Basilian  Assembly  with  its  own  Enactments  in  granting  the 
Cup  to  the  Moravians  and  Bohemians — Council  of  Trent — Opposition  to  the  Tren- 

"    tine  Canons  in  France,  Germany,  Bohemia,  Poland,  and  Hungary.  425 


CHAP.  XV:  EXTREME  UNCTION. 

Variations  on  its  Effects — Disagreement  on  its  Institution — The  Scriptural  and 
Popish  Unction  vary  in  their  Administrator,  Sign,  Form,  Subject,  and  End — 
Recovery  of  Health  the  Scriptural  end  of  Anointing  the  sick — Traditional 
Evidence — History  of  extreme  Unction.  441 

2* 


XX  CONTENTS. 

CHAP.  XVI :     IMAGE  WORSHIP 

Three  Systems — One  allows  the  use  of  Images — The  Second  patronizes  their  In- 
ferior or  Honorary  Worship—The  Third  prefers  the  same  Adoration  to  the 
Representation  as  to  the  Original— Image- Worship  a  Variation  from  Scriptural 
Authority — A  Variation  from  Ecclesiastical  Antiquity — Miraculous  Proofs — Ad- 
missions— Introduction  of  Images  into  the  Church — Their-Worship — Iconoclasm 
— Byzantine  Council — Second  Nicene  Council — Western  System — Caroline 
Books — Frankfordian  Council — Parisian  Council — Eastern  Variations — Final 
Establishment  of  Idolatry  by  Theodora.  457 

CHAP.  XVII :     PURGATORT. 

Its  Situation  and  Punishment — Destitute  of  Scriptural  authority — Admissions — 
Scriptural  Arguments — Destitute  of  Traditional  Authority — Admissions — Prayer 
for  the  Dead — Pagan,  Jewish,  and  Mahometan  Purgatory — Its  Introduction  into 
the  Christian  Community — Its  slow  Progress — Completed  by  the  Schoolmen — 
Florentine  Council — Trentiae  Council.  490 


CHAP.  XVIII:     CELIBACY  OF  THE  CLERGY. 

Variety  of  Systems — Jewish  Theocracy — Christian  Establishment — Ancient  Tradi- 
tion— Introduction  of  Clerical  Celibacy — Reasons — Greeks — Latins — Effects  of 
Sacerdotal  Celibacy—Domesticism,  Concubinage,  and  Matrimony— Second  Period 
of  Celibacy — Opposition  to  Gregory — Toleration  of  Fornication — Preference  of 
Fornication  to  Matrimony  among  the  Clergy — Permission  of  Adultery  or  Bigamy 
to  the  Laity — View  of  Priestly  Profligacy  in  England,  Spain,  Germany,  Switzer- 
land, France,  Italy,  and  Peru — Councils  of  Lyons,  Constance,  and  Basil.  526 


FATHERS  AND  POPISH  AUTHORS 


QUOTED    IN    THIS    WORK. 


AUTHOB. 

ABBO  - 

WORK. 

Sermones 

VOL.  PLACE. 

-     1  Paris 

DATR- 

1723 

Aimon 

Tractatus 

-     1  Paris 

1723 

Alexander     - 

Historia     - 

-  25  Paris 

1683 

Ambrosius 

Opera 

-     5  Paris 

1661 

Amour 

Journal 

1  London 

1664 

Andilly 

Vies  de  Saints  - 

-     1  Paris 

1664 

Anastasius 

De  Vitis  Pontificum 

-     1  Venice 

1729 

Anglade 

Maynooth  Report 

1  London 

1827 

Antonius 

De  Concilio 

-     1  Venice 

1828 

Aquinas,  (Thomas) 

Summa 

-     3  Lyons 

1567 

Arsdekin 

Theologia 

-     3  Antwerp 

1682 

Athanasius    - 

Opera 

-     3  Paris 

1698 

Augustine     - 

Opera 

-  10  Venice 

1731 

Avocat 

Dictionnaire 

-     2  Paris 

1760 

Barclay 

De  Potestate 

-     1 

1609 

Basil     - 

Opera 

-     3  Paris 

1721 

Bausset 

Life  of  Fenelon 

-     2  London 

1810 

Bede     - 

Opera 

-     8  Colonia 

1612 

Bellarmine  - 

Disputationes 

-     3  Lyons 

1587 

Bentivolio    - 

Historia 

-     1 

Benedict 

Histoire 

-     2  Paris 

1691 

Bernard 

Opera 

-     1  Paris 

1632 

Bertram 

De  Corpore 

1  London 

1688 

Binius 

Concilia 

-     9  Paris 

1636 

Bossuet 

Exposition 

-     1  London 

1685 

Bossuet 

Variations 

-     4  Paris 

1747 

Bossuet 

Opuscules 

-     3  Lou  vain 

1764 

Bisciola 

Epitome 

-     1  Lou  vain 

1680 

Boileau 

Historia 

-     1  Paris 

1700 

Bruys 

Historic 

-     5  Hague 

1732 

Cajetan 

Opuscula 

-     3  Lyons 

1567 

Calmet 

Dissertations 

-     3  Paris 

1720 

Calmet 

Commentaire 

-  24  Paris 

1715 

Canisius 

Thesaurus 

-     4  Antwerp 

1726 

Carranza 

Concilia 

-     1  Paris 

1678 

Caron     - 

Remonstrantia 

-     1 

1665 

Chrysostom 

Opera 

-  13  Paris 

1724 

Cedrenus     - 

Compendium 

-     2  Venice 

1729 

Challenor     - 

Catholic  Christian 

-     1   London 

1782 

Chard  in 

Travels 

1   London 

1686 

Clemens 

Opera 

-     2  Oxford 

1715 

Coqnille 

Discours 

-     1  Paris 

1617 

Cosrnas 
Cossart 

Topographia 
Concilia 

-     1  Paris 
-     6  Lucca 

1707 
1748 

xxn 


FATHERS  AND  POPISH  AUTHORS. 


AUTHOR. 

Cotelerius    - 

Coyne 

Grotty 

Crabbe 

Cyprian 

Cyril,  (Jerusal.) 

Cyril,  (Alex.) 

Dachery 

Davila 

Daniel 

Durand 

Dens 

Doyle 

Du  Cange   • 

DuPin 

DuPin 

Dellon 

Durandus     - 

Eadmerus    • 

Ephraim 

Epiphanius 

Erasmus 

Estius 

Etherius 

Eusebius 

Evagrius 

Faber 

Fabulottus  - 

Fauchet 

Fleury 

Fordun 

Gabutius 

Gaufridus    - 

Gelasius 

Gibert 

Gocelin 

Godeau 

Giannone     - 

Gnther 

Gildas 

Gregory 

Guicciafdini 

Heinricius    • 

Herman       - 

Higgins 

Hilary 

Hotman 

Houbigant  - 

Hoveden 


VTOS.K. 

Patres  Apostolic! 

Catalogue     - 

Maynooth  Report 

Concilia 

Opera 

Opera 

Opera  - 

Spicilegium 

Histoire 

Histoire 

Speculum     - 

Theologia    - 

Parliamentary  Report  - 

Glossarium  - 

Dissertationes 

History 

History 

De  Corpore 

Vita  Oswald! 

Opera 

Opera 

Opera  ... 

Commentaria 

Adv.  Alepand. 

Historia 

Historia        ... 

Disputationes 

De  Potestate 

Traite* 

Catechism    ... 

Historia        ... 

Vita  Pi!  V.  - 

Histoire        ... 

Adv.  Euty.  - 

Corpus         ... 

Historia        ... 

Histoire        ... 

History 

Papist  represented 

Historia 

Opera  ... 

La  Historia  - 

Annales 

Chronicon    - 

Maynooth  Report 

Opera  ... 

Traite* 

Biblia  .... 

Annales        ... 


VOL.  PLACE.  DAT* 

2  Amsterdam  1724 
1  Dublin  1735 
1  London  1827 

3  Colonia  1551 
1  Oxford  1682 
1  Oxford  1703 

7  Paris  1638 

4  Paris  1723 
1  Rouen  1664 

10  Paris  1729 

3  Venice  1578 

8  Dublin  1832 
1  London  1827 
6  Paris  1733 
1  Paris  1686 
3  Dublin  1724 
1  London  1688 
1  Paris  1648 
1  London  1623 

1  Colonia  1603 

2  Colonia  1684 
10  Lyons  1703 

2  London  1653 

1  Antwerp  1725 

1  Paris  1659 

1  Cambridge  1720 

2  Paris  1723 
1  Venice  1728 
1  Paris  1639 
1  Dublin  1765 
1  Oxford  1691 

1  Rome  1605 

2  Aix  1694 
1  Basil  1556 

3  Lyons  1737 

1  London  1691 
6  Paris  1680 

2  London  1729 
1  London  1685 

1  Oxford  1691 

4  Paris  1705 

2  Venice  1755 
1  Antwerp  1725 
1  Antwerp  1725 
1  London  1827 
1  Paris  1631 
1  Paris  1594 
4  Paris  1753 
1  London  1596 


FATHERS    AND    POPISH    AUTHORS. 


XXI 11 


AUTHOR. 

Hugo    - 

WORK. 

-     De  Corpore 

VOL. 
-         1 

Irenaeus 

-     Contra  Haereses 

-        1 

Isodorus 

-     De  Ordine 

-         1 

Jacobatius 

-     De  Concilio 

-         1 

Jerom    - 

-     Opera 

-     5 

Jonas 

-     De  Institutione 

-     1 

Jovius   - 

-     Historia 

-     2 

Juenin  - 

-     Institutiones 

-     5 

Justin    - 

-     Opera 

-     1 

Labbeus 

-     Concilia 

•  23 

Lactantius 
Limiers 

-     Opera 
-     Histoire 

-     1 
-  10 

Llorente 

-     History 

-     1 

Launoy 

-     Epistolse 

-     5 

Lanfranc 
Le  Bruyn 

-     Opera             -         •• 
-     Voyages 

-     1 
-     5 

Liberatus 

•     Breviarium 

-     1 

Lopez 

-     Epitome 

-     1 

Lyra 

-     Biblia 

-     6 

Mabillon 

-     Annales 

-     6 

Mageoghegan 

-     Histoire 

-     3 

Maldonat 

-     Commentarium 

-     1 

Me  Hale 

•     Maynooth  Report 

-     1 

Maimbourg    - 

-     Traite 

-     1 

Maimbourg   - 

-     Histoire 

-     1 

Mariana 

-     Histoire 

-     5 

Mendoza 

•     De  Concilio 

.     1 

Mezeray 

-     Histoire 

-     6 

Milletot 

-     Traite 

-     1 

Milner 

-     End  of  Controversy 

-     1 

Montfaucon   - 

-     Bibliotheca 

-     1 

Moreri 

-     Dictionnaire 

-     8 

Mumford 

-     Scripturist 

•     1 

Malmsbury    - 

-     De  Pontificibus 

-     1 

Malmsbury    - 

-     De  Gestis 

-     1 

More 

-    Opera 

•     1 

Nangis 

-     Chronicon 

-     1 

O'Leary 

-     Works 

-     1 

Origen 

-     Commentaria 

-     2 

Origen 

-     Hexapla 

-     2 

Orleans 

-     Histoire 

-     2 

Osbern 

-     Vita  Odonis 

-     1 

Panormitan   - 

-    Deere  talia 

-     4 

Panormitan  - 

-     Concilia 

-     1 

Paolo    - 

-     Histoire 

-     2 

Paris     - 

-     Historia 

-     1 

Pascal  • 

-     CEuvres 

-     5 

Paulinus 

-     Opera 

-     1 

^tivius 

-     Rationarium 

-     2 

1  Paris  1648 

1  Paris  1710 

1  Paris  1723 

1  Venice  1728 

5  Paris  1706 

1  Paris  1723 

2  Paris  1553 
5  Bassano  1773 
1  Paris  1636 

lice  1728 

1  Cambridge  1685 

10  Amsterdam  1718 

1  London  1818 

5  Paris  1675 

1  Paris  1648 

5  Paris  1725 
1  Paris  1648 
1  Antwerp  1622 

6  Venice  1588 
6  Paris  1713 

3  Paris  1758 
1  Mentz  1596 
1  London  1827 
1  Paris  1686 
1  Paris  1684 

5  Paris  1726 
1  Venice  1728 

6  Amsterdam  1688 
1  Paris  1639 

Philadelphial820 

1  Paris  1715 

8  Amsterdam  1720 

1  Dublin  1767 

1  Oxford  1691 

1  London  1596 

1  Louvain  1516 

1  Paris  1723 

1  Dublin  1781 

2  Paris  1679 
2  Paris  1713 
2  Hague  1729 
1  London  1691 

4  Lyons  1550 

1  Lyons  1551 

2  London  1736 
1  Zurich  1589 

5  Paris  1819 

1  Verona  1736 

2  Lyons  1745 


XXIV 


FATHERS    AND    POPISH    AUTHORS. 


AUTHOR. 

Pithou 

Photius 

Platina 

Polydorus 

Procopius 

Prosper 

Quesnel 

Ranulph 

Ratramn 

Ratherius 

Renaudot 

Rhemists 

Rivers 

Sclater 

Sclater 

Slevin 

Socrates 

Spondanus 

Theodolf 

Theodoret 

Theophanes 

Theophylact 

Tertullian 

Thomassin 

Thuamis 

Thevenot 

Trivettus 

Ulderic 

Varillas 

Vertot 

Victor 

Vignier 

Velly 

Ward 

Walsh 

Zonaras 


WORK. 

Corpus  Juris 

VOL.  PLACE.                       DATE. 

1  Paris              1687 

Bibliotheca 

1  Geneva         1612 

De  Vitis  Pontificum 

1  Colonia          1551 

Historia 

1  Basil              1534 

Opera 

1  Venice           1729 

Opera 

2  Venice           1744 

Le  Nouveau  Testament 

4  Brussels         1702 

Polychronicon 

1  Oxford           1691 

Contra  Grace.  Opp. 

1  Paris              1723 

Epistolae 

1  Paris              1723 

Collectio        - 

2  Paris              1716 

New  Testament     - 

1  Manchester  1813 

Manuel 

1  Dublin           1816 

Consensus 

1  London          1686 

Nubes  Testium 

1  Londor          1686 

Maynooth  Report 

1  London         1827 

Historia          ... 

1  Paris              1668 

Epitome        ... 

1  Mentz            1618 

Fragmenta    - 

1  Paris              1723 

Opera 

4  Paris              1612 

Chronographia 

1  Venice           1729 

Commentarii 

2  Paris              1635 

Opera             ... 

1  Paris              1689 

Discipline      -         -         - 

2  Paris              1679 

Historia         ... 

7  London         1773 

Voyages        ... 

5  Amsterdam  1727 

Chronicon      -         -         - 

1  Paris              1723 

Consuetudines 

1  Paris              1723 

Histoire         ... 

2  Cologne         1684 

Origine           ... 

1  Hague           1737 

Chronicon     -         -         - 

1  Antwerp        1725 

Bibliotheque 

3  Paris              1587 

Histoire         .         -         - 

20  Paris              1701 

Speculum      -        -         - 

1  London         1688 

History          ... 

1                          16~4 

Annales         - 

2  Venice           1729 

Apologie       -         -         - 

3  Antwerp        1792 

Breviarium  Romanum  - 

1  Venice          1729 

Catech.  Tridentin 

1  Paris              1568 

Codex  Justinian 

2  Lyons            1571 

Codex  Theodosianus     - 

6  Lyons            1665 

Clementinas 

1  Paris              1612 

De  Primatu 

1  London         1769 

Extravagantes 

1  Paris              1612 

Hist.  Du  Wicklif 

1  Lyons             1682 

Memoirs  sur  la  Predestin 

1  Amsterdam  1689 

Missale  Romanum 

1  Campid         1767 

Officia  Propria 

1  Dublin           1792 

Processionale  Romanum 

1  Paris     ,        1676 

INTRODUCTION. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE    UNITY    OF    PROTESTANTISM. 

HARMONY      OF      THE      REFORMED      CONFESSIONS      OF     FAITH CONSUB8TAN1IATION      OF 

LUTHERANISM POPISH      DIVERSITY       ON       TRANSUBSTANTIATION DISCIPLINARIAN 

VARIETY SECTARIANISM — FOOLERY    OF    ROMANISM BEATA CLARA NATIVITY 

FLAGELLI8M— CONVULSIONARI ANISM FESTIVAL  OF  THE  ASS DECISION  OF  A  ROMAN 

SYNOD ANTIQUITY     OF     PROTESTANTISM PROTESTANT     NAME PROTESTANT    THE- 
OLOGY  PROTESTANT    CHURCHES THE     WALDENSIAN THE     GRE£K THE     NESTO- 

RIAN  —  THE   MONOPHYSIAN THE  ARMENIAN THE   SYRIAN. 

THE  unity  and  antiquity  of  Romanism,  have,  by  its  partizans, 
been  often  contrasted  with  the  diversity  and  novelty  of  Protest- 
antism. These  topics  supply  the  votary  of  papal  superstition 
with  fond  occasions  of  exultation,  triumph,  and  bravado.  Ro- 
manism, according  to  its  friends,  is  unchangeable  as  truth,  and 
old  as  Christianity.  Protestantism,  according  to  its  enemies, 
is  fluctuating  as  falsehood,  and  modern  as  the  Reformation. 
The  Bishop  of  Meaux  has  detailed  the  pretended  "Variations 
oi"  Protestantism,"  and  collected,  with  invidious  industry,  nil 
its  real  or  imaginary  alterations.  The  religion  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, in  the  statements  of  this  author,  is  characterized  by  muta- 
bility. Protestantism,  in  his  account,  separated,  in  its  infancy, 
into  jarring  systems,  and  appeared,  in  the  nations  of  its  nativity, 
in  many  diversified  forms.  But  this  discordancy,  it  will  be 
found,  is  the  offspring  of  misrepresentation.  The  Reformers, 
in  their  doctrinal  sentiments,  exhibited  a  wonderful  agreement. 
Their  unanimity,  indeed,  was  amazing ;  and  showed,  that  these 
distinguished  theologians,  renouncing  the  vain  commandments 
of  men,  and  the  muddy  streams  of  tradition,  had  all  imbibed 
the  same  spirit,  and  drunk  from  the  same  fountain. 

The  doctrinal  unity  of  the  Reformed  appears  from  their  Con- 
fessions of  Faith.  These  were  published  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Reformation  ;  and  all,  in  different  phraseology,  contain, 
Tn  the  main,  the  same  truths.  Twelve  of  these  public  Exposi- 
tions of  belief  were  issued  in  the  several  European  nations. 
These  were  the  Augsburg,  Tetrapolitan,  Polish,  Saxon,  Bohe- 
mian, Wittemberg,  Palatine,  Helvetian,  French,  Dutch,  English, 
and  Scottish  confessions.  All  these  are  printed,  in  Latin,  in 
Chouet's  Collection  ;  arid  have  been  abridged  and  criticised  by 


26  INTRODUCTION. 

Sleidan,  Seckendorf,  Brandt,  Bossuet,  Maimbourg,  Moren,  ana 
Du  Pin,  according  to  their  diversified  prepossessions  and  designs. 

The  Augsburg  or  Augustan  Confession  is  the  production  of 
Melancthon,  and  was  reviewed  and  approved  by  Luther.  The 
Elector  of  Saxony,  attended  by  a  few  of  the  German  Princes, 
presented  it  in  1530  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany  at  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg.  This  confessional  manifesto,  which  was  read  in 
the  Augustan  Congress,  received  its  name  from  the  place  of  its 
presentation ;  and  became  the  standard  of  Lutheranism,  through 
Germany,  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway.  The  work  has  been 
criticised  with  the  pen  of  prejudice  by  Maimbourg,  and  abridged 
with  impartiality  by  Seckendorf,  Sleidan,  Paolo,  Moreri,  and 
Du  Pin.1 

The  Tetrapolitan,  like  the  Augustan  Confession,  was,  in  1530. 
presented  to  his  Imperial  Majesty,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg, 
by  a  Deputation  from  Strasbourg,  Constance,  Memmingen,  and 
Lindau.  The  ambassadors  on  this  occasion,  represented  these 
four  cities,  and,  from  this  circumstance,  this  public  document 
took  its  appellation.  This  compendium  was  compiled  by  Bucer 
and  Capito,  and  approved  by  the  Senate  of  Strasbourg.  The 
compilation  has  been  epitomised,  with  his  usual  fairness,  byDu 
Pin,  from  whom  it  extorted  a  flattering  eulogy.  This  writing, 
says  the  Sorbonnist,  is  composed  with  much  subtlety  and  address. 
Every  article  is  supported  by  scriptural  authority,  and  expressed 
in  a  manner  calculated  to  impose  on  the  reader. 2 

The  Bohemian,  the  Saxon,  the  Wittemberg,  the  Polish,  and 
the  Palatine,  soon  followed  the  Augustan  Confession.  The  Bo- 
hemian or  Waldensian  Formulary  was  compiled  from  older 
records,  and  presented,  in  1535,  to  the  Emperor  Ferdinand,  by 
the  nobility  of  Bohemia.  The  Saxon,  in  1551,  was  issued  in 
the  Synod  of  Wittemberg,  approved  by  the  Protestant  Clergy 
of  Saxony,  Misnia,  and  Pomerania,  sanctioned  by  the  Princes 
of  Brandenburg  and  Mansfelt,  and  presented,  the  same  year,  to 
the  Council  of  Trent.  The  Wittemberg,  composed  by  Brent, 
was  published  in  1552.  The  Polish  was  formed  in  the  General 
Synod  of  Sendomir,  in  1570,  and  recognized  through  Poland, 
Lithuania,  and  Samogitia.  Frederic  the  Third,  the  Elector 
Palatine,  in  1576,  issued  aFormulary,  in  which  he  conveyed  an 
exposition  of  his  own  faith.  8 

The  Helvetian  Confession  was  issued  in  1536,  at  Basil,  in  a 

1  Mez.  4.  566.     Chouet,  3.     Boss.  1.  98.     Sleid.  1.  284.     Secken.  152.     Paolo. 

1.  89.     Du  Pin,  3.  207.     Moreri,  2.  561. 

'Chouet,  215.     Du  Pin,  3.  207,209.     Boss.  1.  98.     Sleid.  1.285.     Secken.  19a 
3  Chouet,   4.    140,   201.     Alex.    17.   405.     Bossuet,    1.    410.     Du  Pin,  3.  659. 

Moreri,  2.  562. 


INTRODUCTION.  27 

convention  of  the  Reformed  Ministry  and  Magistracy  of  Swit- 
zerland, and  received,  with  common  consent,  through  the  Can- 
tons of  the  nation.  This  form  of  belief  was  afterwards  signed  by 
a  second  assembly,  held  the  same  year  in  the  same  city.  This, 
enlarged  and  improved,  was  again  published  in  1566,  and 
extorted  an  unwilling  eulogy  even  from  the  bishop  of  Meaux. 
The  Swiss  Confession,  according  to  this  author,  excels  all  other 
cdmpendiums  of  the  same  kind  which  he  had  seen  in  plainness 
and  precision.  The  theologians  of  Basil,  therefore,  on  this 
memorable  occasion,  not  only  promulgated  their  creed,  but, 
wonderful  to  tell,  made  even  Bossuet  once  at  least  in  his  life  tell 
the  truth. 1 

The  confessions  of  France,  Holland,  England,  and  Scotland 
soon  followed  that  of  Switzerland.  The  F  rench  Formulary  was 
drawn  up  in  a  national  synod  at  Paris  in  1559.  Beza,  in  1561, 
presented  it  to  Charles  the  Ninth,  in  the  colloquy  of  Poissy. 
This  public  document  was  confirmed  in  the  national  council  of 
Rochelle,  and  signed  by  the  Queen  of  Navarre,  by  her  son 
Henry  the  Fourth,  by  Conde,  Nassau,  Coligny,  and  the  synod, 
and  recognized  by  the  reformed  of  the  French  nation.  Chouet 
has  given  it  in  Latin,  and  Laval  in  French.  The  Dutch  or 
Belgic,  written  in  French  in  1561,  and  in  Dutch  and  Latin  in 
1581,  was  confirmed  in  a  National  Synod  in  1579.  The  English 
was  edited  in  the  Synod  of  London  in  15 62,  and  printed  by  the 
authority  of  the  Queen  in  1571.  This  form  of  belief,  published 
for  the  purpose  of  removing  dissension  and  promoting  harmony, 
was  approved  by  the  dignified  and  inferior  clergy  and  subscribed 
by  her  Majesty  Queen  Elizabeth.  That  Formula  is  faithfully 
abrid ged  by  D u  Pin.  Several  Confessions  appeared  in  Scotland 
in  different  times.  Knox,  in  1560,  composed  one,  which  was 
ratified  by  parliament.  This,  however,  and  others,  were  only 
provisional  and  temporary,  and  sunk  into  neglect,  on  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Formulary  compiled  at  Westminster,  which,  in  1647, 
was  approved  by  the  General  Assembly,  and  in  1649,  and  1690, 
was  ratified  by  the  Scottish  parliament  at  Edinburgh,  and  after- 
ward  avowed  by  the  people.  2 

The  approbation  of  each  confession  was  not  limited  to  the 
nation,  for  which,  in  a  particular  manner,  it  was  intended.  The 
Reformed  of  the  several  European  kingdoms  evinced  their  mutual 
concord  and  communion,  by  a  reciprocal  subscription  to  theso 
forms  of  faith.  The  Saxon  Creed  was  approved  by  the  Reformed 
of  Strasbourg  and  Poland :  and  the  Bohemian  or  Waldensian  by 

1  Chouet,  3,  4.     Du  Pin,  3.  219,  656.     Boss.  1.  110.  and  2.  61.     Moreri,  2.  562. 
*  Chouet,  4,  99,  125.     Laval,  1.  117.     Du  Pin,  3.  656,  661.     Aymon.  1.  145, 300. 
98—111.     Thuan.  2.  54.     Moreri,  2.  562. 


28  INTRODUCTION. 

Luther,  Melancthon,  Bucer ;  by  the  academy  of  Wittemberg,  by 
the  Lutherans  and  Zuinglians,  and  indeed  by  all  the  friends 
of  Protestantism.1  The  Polish  was  recommended  by  the  Wal- 
densians  and  Lutherans.  The  Dutch  was  subscribed  by  the 
French  National  Synod  of  Figeac ;  and  the  French  by  the 
reformed  of  the  Netherlands.  The  Swiss,  united  to  each  other 
in  mind  and  communion,  declared  themselves  undivided  from 
the  reformed  of  other  nations  of  Christendom ;  and  their  con- 
fession was  signed  by  the  Protestants  of  Germany,  Hungary, 
Poland,  France,  Belgium,  England,  and  Scotland. 

These  confessional  systems  comprised  all  the  topics  of  theo- 
logy. Faith  and  morality  were  discussed  with  precision  and 
perspicuity.  God,  the  Trinity,  predestination,  creation,  provi- 
dence, sin,  duty,  redemption,  regeneration,  justification,  adop- 
tion, sanctification,  baptism,  communion,  death,  resurrection, 
and  immortality,  all  these  subjects  and  many  others  were  com- 
prehended in  these  publications.  The  truth  and  duty  of  reli- 
gion were,  in  these  concise  expositions,  explained  in  a  clear  and 
satisfactory  manner. 

These  doctrinal  compilations  represented  the  theology  of  a 
vast  population.  Protestantism  pervaded  Norway,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  Prussia,  Poland,  Germany,  Transylvania,  Hungary, 
Switzerland,  France,  Holland,  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland: 
and  visited  the  continents  of  Asia,  Africa,  and  America.  The 
extensive  territory,  in  this  manner,  from  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Euxine,  and  from  the  Icy  Ocean  to  the  Mediterranean  Sea, 
witnessed  the  light  of  the  Reformation,  which,  propagated  at 
succeeding  times  by  missionary  zeal,  reached  the  African  and 
Asian  continents,  and  crossing  the  interposing  ocean,  illuminated 
the  transatlantic  shores  in  a  world  unknown  to  the  ancients. 

The  harmony  of  these  declarations  of  belief  is  truly  surpris- 
ing, and  constitutes  an  extraordinary  event  in  the  history  of  man. 
The  annals  of  religion  and  philosophy  supply  no  other  example 
of  such  agreement.  The  several  nations,  let  it  be  recollected, 
acted,  on  these  occasions,  in  an  independent  manner,  without 
concert  or  collusion.  The  one  had  no  power  or  authority  to 
control  the  other.  The  clergy  and  laity,  besides,  were  numer- 
ous and  scattered  over  a  wide  territory.  The  transaction,  in 
its  whole  progress,  manifested  the  finger  of  Heaven,  and  the 
overruling  providence  of  God.  The  Reformed,  indeed,  had 
the  one  common  standard  of  revelation.  Directed  by  this  cri 
terion,  the  eady  patrons  of  Protestantism  formed  their  faith, 

1  Lutherns  hanc  Valdensinm  Bohemorum  confessionem  approbavit.  Eamdena 
landrarant  Melancton  et  Bucerius.  Alex.  17.  406.  Chouet,  3,  4,  12.  Du  Pin.  3 
253.  Boss.  1.  XV.  Aymon.  1  145,  157,  300. 


INTRODUCTION.  29 

which  except  on  one  point,  to  evidence  human  weakness,  ex* 
hibited  a  perfect  unanimity.  The  Zuinglian  and  Lutheran 
Confessions,  says  Paolo,  differed  in  reality,  only  on  the  sacra- 
ment.1 All  these  comprehensive  abridgments  showed,  in  varied 
diction,  an  astonishing  unity,  in  the  main,  on  all  doctrinal  ques- 
tions, though  they  might  differ  on  discipline  and  ceremony. 

The  absurdity  of  consubstantiation,  indeed,  for  some  time, 
deformed  Lutheranism.  This  opinion,  the  Saxon  Reformei, 
during  his  whole  life,  retained  with  obstinacy.  His  pertinacity 
on  this  subject,  kindled  the  sacramentarian  controversy,  which 
awakened  a  series  of  noisy,  useless  disputation.  These  discus- 
sions afforded  Bossuet  a  subject  of  empty  triumph.  Had  it  not 
been  for  this  topic,  on  which  he  has  rung  every  possible  change, 
and  which  constitutes  the  staple  commodity  of  his  "  variations," 
the  good  bishop  would  often  have  been  at  a  woful  loss. 

Luther's  hostility  to  Zuinglianism,  however,  has  been  often 
much  overrated.  This  appears  from  the  conference  between 
the  Lutherans  and  ZuingHans  at  Marpurg  in  1529.  Luther 
appeared,  on  this  occasion,  accompanied  by  Melancthon,  Jonas, 
Osiander,  Brent,  and  Agricola;  and  Zuinglius  by  Bucer, 
Oecolompadius,  and  Hnedio.  Many  other  persons  of  merit  and 
erudition  attended.  The  Lutherans  and  Zuinglians  both  agreed 
in  the  belief  of  a  real  presence  in  the  sacrament ;  but  differed 
whether  this  presence  was  corporal  or  spiritual.  Mutual  good 
will  and  friendly  feeling,  however,  prevailed,  especially  on  the 
part  of  the  Zuinglians.  This  is  admitted  by  Maimbourg,  Du 
Pin,  Paolo,  and  Luther.  The  Zuinglians,  according  to  Maim- 
bourg, Du  Pin,  Sleidan,  and  Seckendorf,  begged,  with  the  most 
earnest  entreaty,  that  a  schism  should  not  be  continued  on  ac- 
count of  one  question.  The  Zuinglians,  according  to  Luther, 
were  mild  and  conciliating  even  beyond  expectation.  An  ac- 
commodation, said  the  Reformer,  is  not  hopeless  ;  and  though  a 
fraternal  and  formal  union  is  not  effected,  there  exists  a  peace- 
ful and  amiable  concord.2  All  agreed  to  exercise  Christian 
charity,  till  God  should  supply  additional  light  on  the  subject 
of  disputation  and  direct  to  the  means  of  establishing  unanimity. 
The  Conference,  besides,  were  unanimous  on  all  other  points  of 
divinity.  All,  say  Du  Pin  and  Paolo,  were  agreed  on  all  topics 
but  the  communion.3  A  confession  was  issued  on  the  subjects 
of  the  Trinity,  the  incarnation,  faith,  baptism,  justification,  sanc- 
tification,  tradition,  original  sin,  vicarious  righteousness,  good 

1  Qui  ne  differoit  de  1'autre,  que  dans  1'article  de  1'eucharistie.     Paolo,  1.  81. 

2  Est,  tamen  placida,  arnica  concord4a.     Seckendorf,  1.  136,  138. 

3  Etant  d*accord  sur  tons  les  autres  chefs.    Paolo,  1 .  82. — They  differed  upon  non« 
of  the  articles,  but  that  of  the  Lord's  supper.     Du  Pin  3.  205. — Sleidan,  VI. 


30  INTROL  UCTION. 

works,  the  civil  magistracy,  and  future  judgment,  and  sub- 
scribed with  the  utmost  harmony  by  Luther,  Zuinglius,  and  the 
other  theologians. 

The  Zuinglian  communion  never  accounted  the  Lutheran 
peculiarity  a  sufficient  reason  for  schism  or  disaffection.  This, 
they  professed  on  many  occasions.  The  French  Reformed,  in 
the  National  Synod  of  Charenton,  acknowledged,  in  express 
terms,  the  purity  of  the  Lutheran  faith  and  worship.  This  as- 
sembly, in  1631,  declared,  says  Aymon,  the  Lutheran  commu- 
nion sound  in  the  fundamentals  of  religion,  and  free  from  super- 
stition and  idolatry.  A  meeting  of  the  two  denominations  in 
1661  at  Cassel,  professed  their  reciprocal  esteem  ;  and,  though 
a  formal  union  was  not  constituted,  expressed  their  mutual  wil- 
lingness for  co-operation  and  cordiality.  The  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists  of  Hungary,  Transylvania,  and  Poland,  in  1570,  in 
the  synod  of  Sendomir,  acknowledged  the  orthodoxy  of  each 
other's  faith,  and  formed  a  treaty  of  friendship  and  unity.1 

The  mutual  friendship  entertained  by  the  Reformed  of  Ger- 
many, France,  and  Switzerland,  terminated  among  those  of 
Hungary,  Transylvania,  and  Poland,  in  a  formal  ecclesiastical 
union.  This  was  gloriously  effected  at  Sendomir  in  1570.  A 
synod  of  Hungarian,  Transylvanian,  and  Polish  Calvinists  and 
Lutherans  met  at  that  city,  acknowledged  the  conformity  of 
their  mutual  faith  to  truth  and  revelation,  formed  themselves 
into  one  body,  and  resolved  on  reciprocal  co-operation  against 
the  partizans  of  Romanism  and  sectarianism.  Agreed  in  doc- 
trine, the  synod,  in  the  genuine  spirit  of  religious  liberty,  left 
each  church  to  the  enjoyment  of  its  own  discipline  and  forms. 
This  noble  and  happy  compact  was  confirmed  in  the  synod  of 
Posen  held  in  the  same  year ;  and  in  those  of  Cracow,  Petro- 
cow,  and  Breslaw  in  1573, 1578,  and  1583.  Two  branches  of 
the  Reformed,  who  had  differed  in  one  non-essential,  concur- 
red, in  this  manner,  to  form  one  ecclesiastical  communion,  and 
to  bury  in  eternal  oblivion,  all  the  conflicting  elements  of  faction 
and  animosity.2 

The  formal  junction,  which  bigotry  had  prevented,  was,  in 
1817,  effected  through  Prussia  and  Germany.  The  Calvinists 
modified  the  severity  of  predestination,  and  the  Lutherans 
renounced  the  absurdity  of  consubstantiation ;  and  both  denomi- 
nations, after  a  candid  explanation,  could  see  no  remaining 
ground  of  schism.  The  two,  in  consequence,  united  into  one 
body.  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  through  the  Prussian  and 
German  dominions  were  amalgamated,  and  both  distinctions 

*  Aymon,  2.  501.     Du  Pin,  3.  699.    3  Thuan.  2.  778. 


INTRODUCTION.  31 

resolved  into  one.  The  two  have  formed  one  ecclesiastical 
community,  and  are  called  Evangelical  Christians.  The  king 
of  Prussia,  on  the  occasion,  showed  great  activity  in  promoting 
the  compilation  of  a  Liturgy,  calculated  to  gratify  the  commu- 
nity and  afford  universal  satisfaction.  The  professors  of 
Lutheranism  and  Calvinism,  in  this  manner,  harmonized,  and 
one  burst  of  benevolence  and  liberality  extinguished  the  disaf- 
fection of  three  hundred  years. 

The  Bishop  of  Meaux  has  taken  occasion  from  these  muta- 
tions to  triumph  over  Protestantism.  But  he  ought  to  have 
known  the  changes  of  Romanism  on  this  topic,  and  have  feared 
to  provoke  retaliation.  The  friends  of  Popery  have  entertained 
diversified  opinions  on  transubstantiation,  which  they  have  not 
accounted  as  essential  in  their  system.  A  few  instances  of 
these  fluctuations  may  be  adduced.  Gregory,  Pius,  Du  Pin, 
and  the  Sorborme,  rejected,  or  were  willing  to  modify,  their 
darling  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 

Gregory  the  Seventh,  presiding  in  1078  with  all  his  infalli- 
bility, in  a  Roman  Synod  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  bishops, 
prescribed  a  form  of  belief  on  this  question,  which  rejected,  or, 
at  least,  did  not  mention  the  corporal  presence.  He  allowed 
Berengarius  to  profess,  that  the  bread  of  the  altar  after  conse- 
cration was  the  true  body,  and  the  wine,  the  true  blood  of  our 
Lord.1  Transubstantiation  and  the  corporal  presence  are  here 
excluded.  Any  Protestant  would  sign  the  declaration.  The 
Zuinglians,  at  the  conference  of  Marpurg,  admitted  the  pres- 
ence of  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  in  the  sacrament,  and 
their  reception  by  those  who  approach  the  communion.2  The 
same  is  taught  in  the  Reformed  Confessions  of  Switzerland, 
France,  Strasbourg,  Holland,  and  England.  Those  of  Swit- 
zerland and  France  call  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  his 
body  and  blood,  which  feed  and  strengthen  the  communicant.8 
Those  of  Strasbourg,  Holland,  and  England  represent  the  con- 
secrated elements  as  his  true  body  and  blood,  which  are  present 
in  the  institution  and  become  our  nourishment.4  The  doctrinal 
exposition  of  Pope  Gregory  and  the  Roman  council  would  have 
satisfied  any  of  the  Reformed  denominations.  All  these  ad- 
mitted aU  that  was  enjoined  by  the  Holy,  Roman,  Apostolic 

1  Profitebatur,  panem  altaris,  post  consecrationem,  ease  verum  corpus  Christi,  et 
vmum  esse  verum  sanguinem.     Cossart,  2.  28.     Mabillon,  5.  125. 
3  Neque  negare  volant,  verum  corpus  et  sanguinem  Christi  adesse.  Seckend.  138. 

3  Appellari  corpus  et  sanguinem  Domini.  Hel.  Con.  in  Chouet,  67.  Nos  pascit  et 
nutrit  carne  sua  et  sanguine.     Gal.  Con.  in  Chouet,  109,  110. 

4  Verum  suum  corpus,   verumque  suum  sanguinem.     Argen.  Con.  in  Chouet, 
240.     Vero  Christi  corpore  et  sanguine  alimur.     Christum  ipsum  sic  nobis  praesen- 
tem  exhiberi.     'Aug.  Con.  in  Chouet,  1 19,  120. — Nos  fide  recipere  verum  corpus,  et 
verum  sanguinem  Christi.     Bel.  Con.  in  Chouet,  182. 


32  INTRODUCTION. 

Synod,  headed  by  his  infallibility.  Mabillon  acknowledges  the 
Beiengarian  creed's  ambiguity  and  insufficiency.1  The  con- 
temporary patrons  of  the  corporal  presence  held  the  same  opin- 
ion as  Mabillon,  and  insisted  on  the  substitution  of  an  unequiv- 
ocal and  explicit  confession,  and  the  insertion  of  the  epithet 
4  substantial.'  This  accordingly  was  effected  next  year.  A 
new  creed  was  issued,  acknowledging  a  substantial  change  in 
the  sacramental  elements  after  consecration.2 

Pius  the  Fourth  followed  the  footsteps  of  Gregory.  This 
Pontiff  in  1560,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  offered  to  con- 
firm the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  containing  the 
Thirty-nine  articles  and  the  Litany,  if  the  British  Sovereign 
would  acknowledge  the  Pontifical  supremacy  and  the  British 
nation  join  the  Romish  Communion.3  The  English  Articles 
reject  Transubstantiation.  The  religion  of  England  under  Eliza- 
beth, Mageoghegan  would  insinuate,  though  without  reason, 
was  composed  of  Lutheranism  and  Calvinism ;  but  certainly 
contained  nothing  of  Transubstantiation.  Pius  wrote  a  letter 
to  the  Queen,  which,  in  the  most  friendly  style,  professed  an 
anxiety  for  her  eternal  welfare,  and  the  establishment  of  her 
royal  dignity.  This  epistle,  with  the  overtures  for  union,  was 
transmitted  by  Parpalio  the  Pope's  nuncio.  Martinengo  was 
commissioned  by  his  Holiness  the  same  year,  to  negociate  a 
similar  treaty.  But  the  terms  were  refused  by  the  Queen  and 
the  nation.  Martinengo  was  not  even  allowed  to  land  in  Britain, 
but  was  stopped  in  the  Netherlands.4 

Du  Pin  and  the  Sorbonne  copied  the  example  of  Gregory 
and  Pius,  and  proposed  at  least  to  modify  the  doctrine  of  Trai>- 
substantiation.  Wake  in  London  and  Du  Pin  in  Paris  com- 
menced an  epistolary  correspondence,  on  the  subject  of  a  union 
between  the  English  and  the  French  church.  The  French 
doctor  proposed  to  the  English  bishop  to  omit  the  word  Tran 
substantiation,  and  profess  a  real  change  of  the  bread  arid  wine 
into  the  Lord's  body  and  blood.  This  modification,  which  would 
satisfy  many  Protestants,  was  a  new  modelling  of  the  Trentine 
council's  definition.  The  pioposal  was  conveyed  in  Du  Fin** 

1  Sub  his  veri  corporis  et  sanguinis  verbis  oequivocalatere  non  immerito  cresiere- 
tar.  Mabil.  5.  125.— Berengarius  brevem  fidei  suae  formulara,  sed  inKufficientem 
ediderat.  Mabillon.  5.  139. 

8  Berengarius  explicatiorem  fidei  formnlara  subscribere  coactus  est.  Vox  sub- 
stantialiter  ultimo  Berengarianae  fidei  profession!  inserta  est.  Mabil.  5.  139. 

3  Qu'il  confirmeroit  le  livere  de  laPriere  Commune.     Le  livre  de  la  Priere  Com- 
mune est  une  espece  de  Rituel  ou  Breviare,  qui  contient  les  trente-neuf  articles  de 
la  religion  pretendue  reformee,  avec  la  formule  des  prieres.     Mageoghegan,  3.  379, 
380,  381.     Cart.  3.  393—Heylin,  303.~Strype.  1.  228. 

4  Trasitus  negatus.  Alexander,  23.  230.     Ne  hujus  quidem  sedis  ad  ipsam,  hao 
de  causa,  nuncios  in  Angliam  trajicere  permiserit.     Mageogh.  3.  412. 


INTRODUCTION.  33 

Commonitorium.  The  plan,  however,  was  not  merely  the  act 
of  Du  Pin.  The  conditions  of  a  coalition  were  read,  and,  after 
due  consideration,  approved  by  the  Sorbonnian  faculty,  so  cele- 
brated for  its  erudition,  wisdom,  and  Catholicism.1  These 
Roman  hierarchs  and  a  French  university  were  willing,  on 
certain  terms,  to  compromise  or  modify  T  ran  substantiation ;  and 
the  patrons  of  Popery,  in  consequence,  need  not  exult  or  won- 
der, if  Lutherans,  Zuinglians,  and  Calvinists  evinced  a  disposi- 
tion to  unite,  while  their  opinions  on  Con  substantiation  disagreed, 
and  much  less,  when  their  minds,  after  long  consideration,  came 
to  correspond. 

The  unity  of  the  reformed,  it  may  be  observed,  was  restricted 
to  faith  and  morality.  Considerable  diversity  existed  in  disci- 
pline and  ceremonies.2  But  these,  all  admit,  are  unessential,  and, 
in  many  instances,  unimportant.  Discipline,  it  is  confessed, 
differs  among  the  Romish  as  well  as  among  the  Reformed. 
The  Disciplinarian  Canons  of  Trent  were  rejected  in  France 
and  in  part  of  Ireland  ;  while  they  are  admitted  even  in  Spain 
only  so  far  as  consistent  with  regal  authority.  Almost  every 
celebrated  schoolman  in  the  Romish  Communion  became  the 
founder  of  a  particular  denomination,  distinguished  by  a  pecu- 
liarity of  regulation  and  government.  The  Augustinians,  Fran- 
ciscans, Dominicans,  Jansenists,  Jesuits,  Benedictines,  were  all 
characterized  by  different  rites,  discipline,  and  ceremonies. 

Sectarianism,  indeed,  has  prevailed  since  the  rise  of  Protest- 
antism. Many  denominations  appeared  after  the  Reformation. 
Arianism,  Swedenborgianism,  Flagellism,  Southcottianism,  and 
other  errors  have  erected  their  portentous  and  fantastic  heads. 
The  clamor  of  Arianism,  the  nonsense  of  Swedenborgianism, 
and  the  ravings  of  Southcottianism,  have  blended  in  mingled 
discord  and  in  full  cry. 

But  all  these  or  similar  kinds  of  schism  and  heresy  appeared, 
in  ah1  their  enormity,  many  ages  before  the  Reformation. 
Division  arose  in  the  church  from  its  origin,  in  the  days  of  apos- 
tolic truth  and  purity.  Irenseus,  who  flourished  in  the  second 
century,  attacked  the  errors  of  his  day,  and  his  work  on  this 
subject  fills  a  full  volume  in  folio.  These  errors,  in  the  days  of 
Epiphanius,  in  the  fourth  century,  had  increased  to  eighty,  and,  in 
the  time  of  Philaster,  to  an  hundred  and  fifty.  Their  number 
continued  to  augment  with  the  progress  of  time  ;  and  their 
systems  equalled  those  of  the  moderns  in  extravagance.  Schism 
and  heresy  prevailed  to  a  more  alarming  extent,  before  than 

1  Du  Pin,  Commonitorium,  in  Maclaine's  Mosh.     App.  III.  Biog.  Diet.  30.  473. 
J  In  diversis  epclesiis  quaedam  deprehenditur  varietas  inloquutionibus,  et  modo 
expositionis,  doctrinse,  in  ritibus  item  vel  cseremoniis.     Chouet.  12. 

3 


34  INTRODUCTION". 

since  the  establishment  of  Protestantism  in  its  present  form. 
Later  are  but  a  revival  of  former  errors  and  delusions,  which 
flourished  at  a  distant  period,  and,  preserved  from  oblivion  by 
the  historian,  swell  the  folios  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity. 

These  illusions,  however,  the  Reformers  never  countenanced, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  opposed.  Luther  and  Calvin  withstood 
the  many  deviations  from  truth  and  propriety,  which  appeared 
in  their  day,  and  which  since  that  period  have,  in  various  forms, 
infested  Christendom.  The  Saxon  reformer  exerted  ah1  his 
authority  against  the  error  and  fury  of  Anabaptism  in  Ger- 
many ;  and  was  imitated  in  his  opposition  to  turbulence  by  the 
Swiss,  French,  English,  and  Scottish  Reformers,  Zuinglius, 
Calvin,  Cranmer,  and  Knox. 

The  Romish  priesthood  and  people,  on  the  contrary,  have, 
in  every  age,  fostered  fanaticism  and  absurdity.  Every  foolery 
of  sectarianism,  which,  though  unconnected  with  Protestantism, 
arose  since  the  Reformation,  and  disgraced  religion,  has  nestled 
in  the  bosom  of  Popery,  and  been  cherished  by  its  priesthood 
and  people.  Arianism,  an  affiliated  branch  of  Sociniamsm, 
claims  the  honor  of  antiquity,  and  was  patronized  by  Liberius, 
and  by  the  councils  of  Sirmium,  Selucia,  and  Ariminum.  The 
extravagance  of  Montanism,  as  Tertullian  relates,  was  patron- 
ized by  the  contemporary  Pope  and  rivalled  the  fanaticism  of 
Swedenborgianism.1  The  Pontiff,  says  Godeau,  gave  Mon- 
tanus  letters  of  peace,  which  showed  that  he  had  been  admitted 
to  his  communion.2  His  Holiness,  says  Rhenan,  Montanized. 
Victor,  says  Bruys,  approved  the  prophesying  of  Montanus, 
Priscilla,  and  Maximilla.  The  mania  of  Joanna  Southcott  in 
modern  times  is  eclipsed  by  the  dreams  of  Beata,  Clara,  and 
Nativity. 

Beata  of  Cuenza  in  Spain  was  born  in  the  end  of  the  eigh- 
teenth century  in  poverty  and  obscurity.  But  she  aspired,  not- 
withstanding, to  the  character  and  celebrity  of  a  Roman  saint : 
and  for  effecting  her  purpose,  she  invented  a  most  extraordinary 
fiction,  which,  she  said,  was  revealed  to  her  by  the  Son  of  God. 
Her  body,  she  declared,  as  was  indicated  to  her  by  special  reve- 
lation, was  transubstantiated  into  the  substance  of  our  Lord's 
body.  Beata' s  blasphemy  created  no  less  discussion  in  Spain 
than  Joanna's  in  England.  The  Spanish  priests  and  Monks 
divided  on  the  absurdity.  Some  maintained  its  possibility,  and 
some  its  impossibility :  and  the  one  party  wondeied  at  the 

1  Socrat  IV.  21,  22.  Theod.  II.  39,  40.  Spon.  173.  II.  DuPin,  347.  Bruy.  I 
112.  Tertul.  501. 

*  Le  Pape  lui  avoit  donn&  lettres  pacifiques,  qui  montroient  qu'iS  1'avoit  admia 
en  sa  communion.  Godeau.  1.  436.  Bruj*.  1.  40. 


INTRODUCTION.  3D 

other's  unbelief.  A  few,  indeed,  it  appears,  were  the  accom- 
plices of  her  imposture.  But  many  were  the  dupes  of  tneir  own 
credulity.  Beata's  visionary  votaries,  believing  her  flesh  and 
blood  transformed  into  the  substance  of  the  Messiah,  proceeded, 
in  their  folly  and  impiety,  to  adore  the  impostor.  Her  sacer- 
dotal and  lay  partizans  conducted  her  in  procession,  and  with 
lighted  tapers  to  the  churches  and  through  the  streets ;  while 
these  shameful  exhibitions  were  accompanied  with  prostration 
and  burning  of  incense  before  the  new-made  goddess,  as  before 
the  consecrated  host.1  The  woman,  indeed,  was  as  good  a  divi- 
nity as  sacramental  pastry.  Beata's  claim,  in  all  its  ridiculous 
inconsistency,  was  as  rational  in  itself,  and  supported  by  as 
strong  evidence  as  the  tale  of  Transubstantiation.  The  clergy 
and  laity  of  Spain,  basking  in  the  sunshine  of  infallibility  and 
illuminated  with  all  its  dazzling  splendor,  were  no  less  liable  to 
deception  than  a  few  fanatics  in  England,  guided  by  their  own 
unlettered  and  infatuated  minds. 

Clara  at  Madrid,  less  assuming  than  Beata,  aspired  only  to 
the  name  and  distinction  of  a  prophetess ;  and  her  claims,  like 
those  of  many  other  impostors,  soon  obtained  general  credit. 
Her  sanctity  and  her  miracles  became  the  general  topics  of  con- 
versation. Pretending  to  a  paralytic  affection,  and  unable  to 
leave  her  bed,  the  prophetess  was  visited  by  the  most  distin- 
guished citizens  of  the  Spanish  capital,  who  accounted  them- 
selves honoured  in  being  admitted  into  her  presence.  The  sick 
implored  her  mediation  with  God,  for  the  cure  of  their  disor- 
ders ;  and  grave  and  learned  judges  supplicated  light  to  direct 
them  in  their  legal  decisions,  from  the  holy  prophetess.  Clara 
uttered  her  responses  in  the  true  Delphic  style,  like  a  Priestess 
of  Apollo,  placed  on  the  Tripod  and  under  the  afflatus  of  the 
God,  or  like  a  seer,  who  beheld  futurity  through  the  visions  of 
inspiration.  She  was  destined,  she  announced,  by  a  special  call 
of  the  spirit,  to  become  a  capuchin  nun ;  but  wanted  the  health 
and  strength  necessary  for  living  in  a  cloistered  community. 
His  infallibility,  Pope  Pius  the  Seventh,  in  a  special  brief,  per- 
mitted her  to  make  her  profession  before  Don  Athanasius,  Arch 
'  bishop  of  Toledo.  The  Vicar-General  of  God  granted  the  holy 
prophetic  nun  a  dispensation  from  a  cloistered  life  and  a  se- 
questered community.  Miss  Clara,  in  this  manner,  was  acknow- 
ledged by  the  head  of  the  Romish  church,  while  Miss  Southcott 
was  disowned  by  every  Protestant  community.  An  altar,  by 
the  permission  of  his  infallibility,  was  erected  opposite  her  bed. 
Mass  was  often  said  in  her  bed-room,  and  the  sacrament  left  in 

Llorente,  558. 
3* 


36  INTRODUCTION. 

her  chamber  as  in  a  sacred  repository.  Clara  communicated 
every  day,  and  pretended  to  her  followers  that  she  took  no  food 
but  the  consecrated  bread.  This  delusion  lasted  for  several 
years.  But  the  inquisition  at  last,  on  the  strength  of  some 
information,  interfered  in  1802,  in  its  usual  rude  manner,  and 
spoiled  the  play.1  The  punishments,  however,  contrary  to 
custom,  were  mild.  This  was,  perhaps,  the  only  act  of  justice 
which  the  holy  office  ever  attempted,  and  the  only  good  of 
which  its  agents  were  ever  guilty. 

The  Revelations  of  sister  Nativity,  with  all  their  ridiculous 
folly,  have  been  recommended  in  glowing  and  unqualified  lan- 
guage by  Rayment,  Hodson,  Bruning,  and  Milner.  This 
prophetess,  if  she  had  little  brains,  had,  it  seems,  clear  eyes  and 
good  ears.  She  saw,  on  one  occasion,  in  the  hands  of  the  offici- 
ating priest  at  the  consecration  of  the  wafer,  a  little  child,  living 
And  clothed  with  light.  The  child,  eager  to  be  received,  or  in 
other  words  eaten,  spoke,  with  an  infantile  voice,  and  desired 
to  be  swallowed.  She  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing,  at  another 
time,  an  infant  in  the  host,  with  extended  arms  and  bleeding  at 
every  limb.  AU  nature,  on  the  day  of  the  procession,  she  per- 
ceived sensible  of  a  present  deity  and  manifesting  joy.  The 
flowers,  on  that  auspicious  day,  blew  with  brighter  beauty,  and 
the  anthems  of  angels  mixed  with  the  hosannas  of  men.  The 
very  dust  becoming  animated,  danced  in  the  sepulchre  of  the 
saint  with  exultation,  and  in  the  cemetery  of  the  sinner  shud- 
dered with  terror. 

The  French  prophetess  also  amused  her  leisure  hours  in  the 
nunnery,  with  the  agreeable  exercise  of  self-flagellation.  The 
use  of  the  disciplining  whip,  unknown,  say  Du  Pin  and  Boilear 
to  all  antiquity,  began  in  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century.  The 
novelty  was  eagerly  embraced  by  a  community  which  boasts  of 
its  unchangeability.  The  inhuman  absurdity  has  been  advo- 
cated by  Baronius,  Spondanus,  PuUus,  Gerson,  and  the  Roman 
Breviary.  Baronius,  the  great  champion  of  Romanism,  followed 
by  Spondanus,  calls  flagellation  '  a  laudable  usage.' 2  This 
satisfaction,  Cardinal  Pullus  admits,  is  rough,  but,  in  proportion 
to  its  severity,  is,  he  has  discovered,  *  the  more  acceptable  to 
God.'3  Gerson,  in  the  council  of  Constance  in  1417,  though 
he  condemned  the  absurdity  in  its  grosser  forms,  recommended 
the  custom,  when  under  the  control  of  a  superior,  and  executed 
by  another  with  moderation,  and  without  ostentation  or  effusion 

1  Llorente,  559. 

*  Ille  laudabilis  usus,  ut  poenitentiae  causa,  fideles  verberibus  seipsos  afficerent 
flagellis.     Spoil.  1056.  III. 

*  Satisfactio  aspera,  tamen,  et  tanto  Deo  gratior.     Pull,  in  Boileau  227. 


INTRODUCTION.  37 

of  blood.1  Self-flagellation,  indeed,  is  sanctioned  by  the  Popish 
church.  The  Roman  Breviary,  published  by  the  authority  of 
Pius,  Clement,  and  Urban,  has  recommended  the  absurdity  by 
its  approbation.  This  publication  details  and  eulogizes  the 
flagellations  practised  by  the  Roman  saints.  These  encomiums 
on  the  disciplinarian  whip  are  read  on  the  festivals  of  these 
canonized  flagellators.  The  work  containing  these  commenda- 
tions, is  authorized  by  three  Pontiffs,  and  received  with  the 
utmost  unanimity  by  the  whole  communion.  The  usage,  there- 
fore, in  all  its  ridiculousness,  possesses  the  sanction  of  infal- 
libility. 

This  improved  species  of  penance  was  adopted  by  the  friendly 
monks  of  the  age  of  the  crusades,  who,  with  a  lusty  arm,  be- 
laboured the  luckless  backs  of  the  penitential  criminals,  men  and 
women,  even  of  the  highest  rank  in  society.  The  nobility, 
gentry,  and  peasantry,  the  emperor,  the  king,  the  lord,  the  lady, 
the  servant,  and  the  soldier,  as  well  as  the  cardinal,  the  metro- 
politan, the  bishop,  the  priest,  the  monk,  and  the  nun,  all  joined 
in  the  painful  and  disgusting  extravagance.2  Cardinal  Damian 
in  1056,  brought  it  into  fashion,  and  Dominic,  Pardolf,  Anthelm, 
Maria,  Margaret,  Hedwig,  Hildegard,  and  Cecald,  who  have 
all,  men  and  women,  been  canonized,  followed  Damian' s  exam- 
ple, and  lacerated  their  backs  for  the  good  of  their  souls. 

The  Roman  Breviary,  already  mentioned,  edited  by  three 
Popes,  commends  many  of  its  saints  for  their  happy  and  fre- 
quent application  of  the  whip  to  their  naked  backs.  Self- 
flagellation,  according  to  Pontifical  authority,  became,  in  their 
hands,  the  sanctified  means  of  superior  holiness.  This  roll  con- 
tains the  celebrated  names  of  Xavier,  Canutus,  Francisca,  Regu- 
latus,  Bernard,  Franciscus,  Teresia,  and  Bertrand.  Xavier,  the 
Indian  apostle,  wielded  against  his  own  flesh,  '  an  iron  whip, 
which,  at  every  blow,  was  followed  with  copious  streams  of 
blood.'  Canutus,  the  Danish  sovereign,  '  chastised  his  body 
with  hair-cloth,  and  flagellation.  Francisca  copied  the  holy 
pattern.  Her  saintship  'took  continual  pains  to  reduce  her 
body  to  submission  by  frequent  self-flagellation.'  Regulatus,  by 
the  skilful  application  of  the  sanguinary  lash,  '  subjected  the 
flesh  to  the  spirit.'  Bernardin,  Franciscus,  and  Bertrand,  fol- 
lowing the  useful  example,  operated  with  a  thong  on  the  back 
for  the  good  of  the  soul.  Teresia  merits  particular  and  honour- 
able mention,  for  applying  with  laudable  attention,  these  Chris- 

1  Flagellatio  fiat,  judicio  superioris,  et  sine  scandalo,  et  ostentatione,  et  sine  san- 
guine.    Gerson,  jn  Labb.  16.  1161. 

2  Non  modo  viri,  sed  et  nobiles  raulieres  verberibus  seipsos  afficerent.     Spoti. 
1056.     III.  Boileau,  180,  307      Labb.  16.  1161.     Du  Pin,  2.  265.     M.  Tans.  90. 


38  INTRODUCTION. 

tian  means  of  holy  torment.  *  She  often  applied  the  bloody 
lash  '  This,  however,  did  not  satisfy  her  saintship.  She  also, 
in  addition,  '  rolled  herself  on  thorns  ;'  and  by  this  means,  says 
the  Breviary,  the  Holy  Nun,  blasphemous  to  tell,  'was  accus- 
tomed to  converse  with  God.'  Her  carcass,  however,  it  seems, 
enjoys,  since  her  death,  the  benefit  of  these  macerations ;  and, 
4  circumfused  in  a  fragrant  fluid,  remains,  till  the  present  day,  the 
undecayed  object  of  worship.'1  The  church,  that  retains  such 
senseless  and  ridiculous  absurdity,  in  a  publication,  reviewed 
by  Pius,  Clement,  and  Urban,  may  cease  to  reproach  Protest- 
antism with  the  acts  of  a  few  mistaken  fanatics  or  moon-struck 
maniacs,  who,  whatever  name  they  may  assume,  are  disowned 
by  every  reformed  denomination  in  Christendom. 

Dominic,  Hedwig,  and  Margaret,  merit  particular  attention  in 
the  annals  of  flagellation.  Dominic  of  the  iron  cuirass  seems  to 
have  been  the  great  patron  and  example  of  this  discipline.  He 
showed  himself  no  mercy,  and  whipped,  on  one  occasion,  till  his 
face,  livid  and  gory,  could  not  be  recognized.  This  scourging 
was  accompanied  with  psalm-singing.2  The  music  of  the  voice 
and  the  cracking  of  the  whip  mingled,  during  the  operation,  in 
delightful  variety. 

Dominic,  in  the  use  of  the  whip,  had  the  honour  of  making 
several  improvements,  which,  in  magnitude  and  utility,  may  be 
reckoned  with  those  of  Copernicus,  Flamsteed,  Newton,  and  La 
Place.  He  taught  flagellators  to  lash  with  both  hands,  and, 
consequently,  to  do  double  execution.3  The  skilful  operator, 
by  this  means  could,  in  a  given  time,  peel  twice  as  much  super- 
abundant skin  from  his  back,  and  discharge  twice  as  much 
useless  blood  from  his  veins.  He  obliged  the  world  also  with 
the  invention  of  knotted  scourges.  This  discovery  also  facili- 
tated the  flaying  of  the  shoulders,  and  enabled  a  skilful  hand  to 
mangle  the  flesh  in  fine  style  for  the  good  of  the  soul. 

Hedwig,  and  Margaret,  though  of  the  softer  sex,  rivalled 
Dominic  in  this  noble  art.  Hedwig  was  Duchess  of  Silesia  and 
Great  Poland.  She  often  walked  during  the  frost  and  cold,  till 
she  might  be  traced  by  the  blood  dropping  from  her  feet  on  the 

1  Xavier  ferreis  in  se  flagellis  ita  saevit,  ut  saepe  copioso  cruore  difflueret.  Brev. 
Rom.  604. 

Canutus  corpus  suum  jejuniis,  ciliciis,  et  flagellis  castigavit.     Brev.  Rom.  648. 

Francisca  corpus  suum  crebris  flagellis  in  servitutem  redigere  jugiter  satagebat 
Brev.  Rom.  710. 

Regulatus  flagellis  carnem  intra  subjectionem  spiritus  continebit.     Brev.  787. 

Bernardinus  flagellis  delicatum  corpus  aifligens.     Brev.  Rom.  801. 

Teresia  asperrimis  flagellis  saepe  cruciaret.  Aliquando  inter  spinas  volutaret  sic 
Deum  alloqui  solita.  Ejus  corpus  usque  ad  hanc  diem  incorruptum,  odorato  liquorc 
circumfusum,  colitur.  Brev.  Rom.  1043. 

8  Psaltaria  integra  recitabantur.     Boileau,  c.  7. 

*  Se  utraque  manu  affatim  diverberasse.    Boileau,  185. 


INTRODUCTION.  39 

snow.  She  wore  aext  her  skin,  a  hair-cloth  that  mangled  hei 
flesh,  which  she  would  not  allow  to  be  washed.  Her  women 
had,  by  force,1  to  remove  the  clotted  blood,  which  flowed  from 
the  torn  veins.  The  Duchess  invented  or  adopted  an  effectual, 
but  rather  rough  means  of  sanctification.  She  purified  heV  soul 
by  the  tears  which  she  shed,  and  her  body  by  the  blows  which 
she  inflicted  with  a  knotted  lash.2 

Margaret,  daughter  to  the  King  of  Hungary,  wore  a  hair- 
cloth and  an  iron  girdle.  She  underwent  not  only  the  usual 
number  of  stripes,  but  made  the  nuns  inflict  on  her  an  extraor- 
dinary quantity,  which  caused  such  an  effusion  of  blood  from 
her  flesh  as  horror-struck  the  weeping  executioners.  Her  devo- 
tion still  augmenting  during  the  holy  week,  she  lacerated  her 
whole  body  with  the  blowrs  of  a  whip.3 

Edmond,  Matthew,  and  Bernardin,  used  their  disciplinarian 
thongs  on  particular  occasions.  Edmond,  who  is  a  saint  and 
Was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was  solicited  to  unchastity  by 
a  Parisian  lady.  The  saint  directed  the  lady  to  his  study,  and 
whether  from  a  taste  for  natural  beauty,  or  more  probably,  to 
facilitate  his  intended  flagellation,  proceeded,  without  ceremony , 
to  undress  his  enamoured  dulcinea,  to  which,  being  unac- 
quainted with  his  design,  the  unsuspecting  fair  submitted  with 
great  Christian  resignation.  He  then  began  to  ply  her  naked 
body  with  a  whip.4  The  operation,  though  it  did  not  in  all 
probability,  excite  very  pleasing  sensations,  tended,  it  appears^ 
to  allay  her  passion. 

Friar  Matthew's  adventure  had  a  similar  beginning  and  end. 
A  noble  nymph,  young,  fair,  and  fascinating,  disrobed  her  lovely 
person,  for  the  purpose,  probably,  of  unveiling  her  native  charms ; 
and  in  this  captivating  dress  or  rather  undress,  paid  a  nocturnal 
visit  to  her  swain  after  he  was  in  bed.5  But  this  Adonis  was 
insensible  and  unkind.  A  lash  of  Spanish  cords,  administered 
front  and  rear  to  her  naked  beauty,  vindicated  the  Friar's  purity 
and  expelled  from  his  apartment  '  the  love-sick  shepherdess.' 

Bernardin  was  tempted  in  the  same  way  and  preserved  by  the 
same  means.  A  citizen  of  Sienna  invited  him  to  her  house  ; 
and,  as  soon  as  he  entered,  shut  the  door.  She  then,  in  un- 
equivocal language,  declared  the  object  of  her  invitation.  Ber- 
nardin, says  the  story,  according  to  divine  suggestion,  desired 

1  Ses  femmes  1'en  retirassent  par  force.     Andilly,  769. 

2  Andilly,  770.  3  Andilly,  795. 

4  Virgis  cecidit,  et  nudatum  corpus  cruentis  vibicibus  conscribillavit.  Boileau,  217. 

6  Noctu  quadam,  spoliata  suis  vestibus,  ad  eum  in  sponda  jacentem  accesserat 
Boileau,  217.  Sulcos  sanguinolentos,  in  juvenilibus  femoribus,  clunibus,  ac  scapn 
Us  diduxit.  Boileau,  218. 


40  INTRODUCTION. 

the  woman  to  undress.1  Flagellators,  indeed,  on  those  occasions, 
generally  chose  to  exhibit  in  the  costume  of  Adam  and  Eve,  and, 
by  this  means,  contrived  to  add  indecency  to  folly.2  The  lady, 
accordingly,  on  the  intimation  of  his  will  and  misunderstanding 
his  design,  immediately  complied.  But  she  was  soon  disagree- 
ably undeceived.  Contrary  to  her  expectations,  and  probably 
to  her  desire,  he  began  to  apply  his  whip,  which  he  used  with 
great  freedom,  till  she  was  tired  of  his  company  and  civility. 

This  flagellation  was  not  peculiar  to  men  and  women.  Satan, 
it  seems,  enjoyed  his  own  share  of  the  amusement.  This,  on  one 
occasion,  says  Tisen  and  after  him  Boileau,  was  bestowed  on 
his  infernal  majesty  by  Saint  Juliana.3  Her  sister  nuns,  on 
this  emergency,  heard  a  dreadful  noise  in  Juliana's  apartment. 
This,  on  examination,  was  found  to  proceed  from  her  conflict 
with  Beelzebub.  Her  saintship  engaged  his  devilship  in  a 
pitched  battle  in  her  own  chamber.  But  Satan,  for  once,  was 
overmatched  and  foiled.  The  saintess  seized  the  demon  in  her 
hands,  and  thrashed  him  with  all  her  might.  Juliana  then  threw 
Belial  on  the  earth,  trampled  him  with  her  feet,  and  lacerated 
him  with  sarcasms.  Satan,  if  accounts  may  be  credited, ,  has 
sometimes  taken  the  liberty  of  whipping  saints.  Coleta,  for  in- 
stance was,  according  to  the  Roman  Breviary,  often  compli- 
mented in  this  way.  Her  saintship  frequently  felt  the  effects  of 
the  infernal  lash.  But  Juliana,  for  once,  repaid  Satan  with 
interest  for  all  his  former  impoliteness  and  incivility.  The 
sainted  heroine,  it  appears,  fought  with  her  tongue  as  well  as 
with  her  fists  and  feet.4  This  weapon  she  had  at  command, 
and  she  embraced  the  opportunity  of  treating  the  Devil  to  a 
few  specimens  of  her  eloquence. 

Dunstan,  the  English  saint,  showed  still  greater  severity  than 
Juliana.  The  Devil  at  one  time  assumed  the  form  of  a  bear,  and 
attacked  the  saint.  Satan,  in  commencing  hostilities,  gaped  and 
showed  his  teeth  ;  but,  it  appears,  could  not  bite.  He  contrived, 
however,  to  seize  Dunstan's  pastoral  staff  in  his  paws,  and 
attempted  to  drag  this  ensign  of  office  to  himself.  But  this, 
Dunstan  was  not  disposed  tamely  to  resign.  He  chose  rather 
to  retain  the  weapon,  and  to  use  it  as  an  instrument  of  war 
against  his  diabolical  assailant.  He  accordingly  applied  it  to 
Belial's  back  with  such  dexterity  and  effect,  that  the  enemy  was 
soon  put  to  flight.  The  conqueror,  also,  like  a  skilful  general, 

1  Ut  se  vestibus  nudaret:  nee  mulier  distulit.     Boileau.  216.     Sarius,  272. 

»  Nudatis  corporibus,  et  omni  stamine  spoliatis,  paiam  et  in  conspectu  hominum 
M>  flagellare.  Boileau,  222.  '  3  Tisen,  60.  Boileau,  270. 

4  Daernonem,  quern  manibus  comprehensum,  quanti  poterat  caedebat.  In  terram 
deinde  prostratum,  pedibus  obterebat,  lacerabat  sarcasmis.  Boileau,  270.  Brev. 
Rom.  700. 


INTRODUCTION.  41 

resolving  to  secure  the  victory,  pursued  the  routed  adversary, 
and  thrashed  with  might  and  main.  The  saint,  in  this  manner, 
continued  his  military  operations  till  he  broke  the  cudgel  in 
three  pieces  on  the  vanquished  Devil.1 

Dunstan  on  another  occasion,  discovered,  saint  as  ne  was, 
still  less  mercy.  Satan,  or  some  other  Devil,  had  the  assurance 
to  put  his  head  through  the  window  of  Dunstan's  cell,  for  the 
purpose  of  tempting  the  saint.  But  the  demon's  intrusion  cost 
him  his  nose,  which,  it  seems,  was  of  <an  enormous  length.  His 
saintship  heated  a  pair  of  pincers  in  the  fire,  and  actuated  with 
holy  rage,  seized  Beelzebub's  nose  in  the  red-hot  forceps.  The 
saint  then  pulled  in,  and  Belial,  if  it  were  he,  pulled  out,  till  the 
nose  gave  way  :  and  Satan,  who,  during  the  comfortable  opera- 
tion, yelled  like  a  fury  and  alarmed  the  whole  neighborhood, 
escaped  with  the  loss  of  his  olfactory  organ.  The  Devil,  though 
the  prominence  of  his  face  had  formerly  been  nearly  as  large  as 
if  he  had  been  at  Sterne's  promontory  of  noses,  has  been  dis- 
tinguished ever  since  by  the  flatness  of  his  nasal  emunctories.2 
This  story  is  gravely  told  by  Osbern,  Ranulph,  and  other  popish 
historians. 

Middleton,  during  his  visit  to  Rome,  witnessed  a  procession 
in  which  the  wretched  votaries  of  superstition  marched  with 
whips  in  their  hands,  and  lashed  their  naked  backs  till  blood 
streamed  from  the  wounds.  A  similar  exhibition  is  presented 
at  the  annual  return  of  the  lent  season.  Men  of  all  conditions 
assembled  at  a  certain  place,  where  whips,  ready  for  the  work, 
are  given  to  the  operators.  The  lights  are  extinguished.  An 
alarm  bell  announces  the  moment  for  commencement.  The  vic- 
tims of  superstition  and  priestcraft  then  ply  the  thong,  and  flay 
their  unfortunate  shoulders.  Nothing  is  heard  during  the  tra- 
gedy, but  the  groans  of  the  self-tormentors,  mingled  with  the 
cracking  of  whips  and  the  clanking  of  chains,  forming,  if  not  a 
very  harmonious,  at  least  a  very  striking  and  noisy  concert.  The 
comfortable  operation,  producing  of  course  an  agreeable  ex- 
coriation, continues  nearly  an  hour,  accompanied  with  the  vocal 
and  instrumental  symphony  of  groans,  whips  and  chains. 

These  flagellating  exhibitions  were  perhaps  surpassed  by  the 
convulsionarian  scenes,  displayed  in  Paris  about  the  year  1759. 
These  frightful  displays  of  fanaticism  and  inhumanity  have 

1  Translates  in  specium  ursi  consimilem  hianti  rictu  orantem  aggreditur.     Fugi 
entum  belluam  dirissime  caedit,  etc.     Osbern,  105. 

2  Larvelem  faciem  tenaculis  includit,  et  totis  viribus  renitens,  monstrum  intror 
sum  trahit.     Oebern,  96. 

Dunstanus,  forcipibus  suis  ignitis,  nasum  dasmonis  comprehendit  et  tenuit,  donee 
daemone  ululaiite  faqtum  hoc  convicaneis  innotesceret.  Ranulph.  vi  p.  270.  Le 
Sueur,  4.  157. 


42  INTRODUCTION. 

been  recorded  by  Baron  Grimm  with  the  greatest  exactness, 
from  reports  taken  on  the  spot  by  Condamine  and  Castel. 
These  shocking  and  degrading  transactions,  countenanced  by 
several  of  the  Roman  clergy,  were  continued  for  upwards  of 
twenty  years  in  the  capital  of  his  Most  Christian  Majesty.  The 
convulsionaries  were  Popish  fanatics,  who  pretended  to  extra- 
ordinary visitations  of  the  Spirit.  During  these  visitations,  the 
enthusiasts  of  this  school  fell  into  convulsions,  or,  at  their  own 
request,  suffered  crucifixion  or  some  other  punishment.1 

Rachel  and  Felicite,  two  pupils  of  the  sisterhood,  were  ac- 
tresses in  the  tragedy.  These  two  maniacs  suffered  crucifixion, 
for  the  purpose,  they  said,  of  exhibiting  a  lively  image  of  the 
Saviour's  passion.  Each  was  nailed  to  a  wooden  cross  through 
the  hands  and  feet,  and  remained  in  this  situation  for  more  than 
three  hours.  During  this  time,  the  sisters  slumbered  in  a 
beatific  ecstacy,  uttered  abundance  of  infantile  nonsense,  and 
addressed  the  spectators  in  lisping  accents  and  all  the  silly  baby- 
ism of  the  nursery.  The  nails  at  length  were  drawn ;  and  the 
sisters,  after  their  wounds  were  washed  and  bandaged,  sat 
down  to  a  repast  in  the  apartment,  and  pretended  that  the  ope- 
ration was  attended  with  no  pain,  but  with  transporting  plea- 
sure. They  both  indeed  had,  with  wonderful  self-command, 
suppressed  all  audible  indications  of  torment  by  groans  or 
murmurs.  Visible  marks,  however,  betrayed  their  inward 
misery.  Their  agony,  especially  at  the  drawing  of  the  nails, 
appeared  by  various  contortions,  writhings,  and  other  unequiv- 
ocal tokens  of  internal  distress. 

A  second  exhibition  consisted  in  the  crucifixion  of  Fanny 
and  Mary.  Condamine,  who  was  a  spectator,  on  the  occasion, 
took  his  description  from  life.  Fanny  suffered  with  the  great- 
est heroism.  She  remained  three  hours  nailed  to  the  cross,  and 
was  shifted,  during  this  period,  into  a  great  variety  of  postures. 
But  Mary  wanted  faith  or  fortitude.  She  shuddered  at  the  fas- 
tening of  the  nails,  and,  in  less  than  an  hour,  shouted  for  relief. 
She  was,  accordingly,  taken  from  the  cross,  and  carried  out  of 
the  chamber  in  a  state  of  insensibility. 

This  tragedy  was  succeeded  by  a  comedy.  Sister  Frances 
announced  that  God  had  commanded  her  on  that  day  to  burn 
the  gown  off  her  back,  for  the  spiritual  edification  of  herself  and 
the  spectators.  Fire,  accordingly,  was,  after  a  great  deal  of 
grimacing,  set  to  her  skirts.  But  her  saintship,  instead  of  ex- 
periencing consolation  and  delight,  screamed  with  terror  and 
yelled  like  a  fury.  Water,  therefore,  was  poured  on  her  petti- 

1  Middleton,  3.     100.     Edinburgh  Review  for  September  1814. 


INTRODUCTION.  43 

coats,  and  her  ladyship,  half-roasted  and  half-drowned,  and 
utterly  ashamed  of  the  exhibition,  was  carried  into  another 
apartment. 

The  melody  of  this  flagellating  and  convulsionarian  worship, 
indeed,  to  vulgar  ears,  appears  something  harsh  ;  and  the  devo- 
tion might,  to  common  understandings,  seem  not  very  high  in 
the  scale  of  rationality.  But  the  music,  in  the  one  instance, 
was  as  harmonious,  and  the  worship,  in  the  other,  as  reasonable 
as  in  the  Feast  of  the  Ass,  celebrated,  for  some  time,  in  the 
Gallican  church,  at  Beauvais  in  Burgundy.  The  friends  of 
this  ceremony  had,  by  their  superior  discernment,  discovered 
that  an  ass  was  the  conveyance  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  when 
they  fled  for  an  asylum  from  IJerod  into  Egypt.  An  institution, 
therefore,  was  appointed  for  the  commemoration  of  the  flight 
and  deliverance,  and  the  solemnity  was  a  pattern  of  rationality 
and  devotion.1 

A  handsome  girl,  richly  attired,  represented  Mary,  who,  from 
some  flattering  portraits  of  her  ladyship,  was  accounted  a  Jew- 
ish beauty.  The  girl,  bedizened  with  finery,  was  placed  on  an 
ass  covered  with  a  cloth  of  gold  and  superbly  caparisoned. 
The  ass,  accompanied  with  a  vast  concourse  of  clergy  and  laity, 
was  led  from  the  cathedral  to  the  parish  church  of  St.  Stephen. 
The  girl,  who  represented  the  mother  of  God,  seated  on  the 
ass,  was  conducted  in  solemn  procession  into  the  sanctuary 
itself,  and  placed  with  the  gospels  near  the  altar.  High  mass 
began  with  great  pomp  ;  and  the  ass,  who  was  a  devout  wor- 
shipper on  the  occasion,  was  taught  to  kneel,  as  in  duty  bound, 
at  certain  intervals,  while  a  hymn,  no  less  rational  than  pious, 
was  sung  in  his  praise.  The  holy  hymn,  recorded  by  Du 
Cange,  is  a  model  for  elegance  and  devotion.  The  following  is 
a  translation  of  four  stanzas  of  the  sacred  ode  in  the  Miltonian 
style  ;  though  no  version  can  equal  the  sublimity  air.d  sense  of 
the  inimitable  original. 

The  Ass  he  came  from  Eastern  climes, 

Heigh-ho,  my  assy, 

He's  fair  and  fit  for  the  pack  at  all  times. 

Sing,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  get  grass, 

And  straw  and  hay  too  in  plenty. 

The  Ass  is  slow  and  lazy  too ; 

Heigh-ho,  my  assy, 

But  the  whip  and  the  spur  will  make  him  go. 

Sing,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  have  grass, 

And  straw  and  hay  too  in  plenty. 

The  Ass  was  born  and  bred  with  long  ears 
Heigh-ho  my  assy, 
t 

1  Du  Cange,  3.  426.     Velly,  2.  537. 


44  INTRODUCTION. 

And  yet  he  the  Lord  of  asses  appears, 
Grin,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  get  grass, 
And  straw  and  hay  too  in  plenty. 
The  Ass  excels  the  hind  at  a  leap, 
Heigh-ho,  my  assy, 

And  faster  than  hound  or  hare  can  trot. 
Bray,  Father  Ass,  and  you  shall  have  grass, 
And  straw  and  hay  too  in  plenty.1 

The  worship  concluded  with  a  braying-match  between  the 
clergy  and  laity  in  honour  of  the  ass.  The  officiating  priest 
turned  to  the  people,  and  in  a  fine  treble  voice  and  with  great 
devotion,  brayed  three  times  like  an  ass,  whose  fair  representa- 
tive he  was  ;  while  the  people,  imitating  his  example  in  thanking 
God,  brayed  three  times  in  concert.  Shades  of  Montanus, 
Southcott,  and  Swedenborg,  hide  your  diminished  heads! 
Attempt  not  to  vie  with  the  extravagancy  of  Romanism.  Your 
wildest  ravings,  your  loudest  nonsense,  your  most  eccentric 
aberrations  have  been  outrivalled  by  an  infalhble  church. 

The  ridiculousness  of  the  asinine  ceremony  was  equalled,  if 
not  surpassed,  by  the  decision  of  a  Roman  Synod.  His  Infalli- 
bility, Boniface  the  Fourth,  presided  on  the  occasion.  The  acts 
of  the  council  were  published  from  a  manuscript  in  the  Vatican, 
by  Holstenius,  and  have  been  inserted  in  the  works  of  Du  Pin 
and  Labbe".  The  holy  Roman  Council  condemned  an  opinion, 
which,  it  appears,  had  prevailed  in  England,  that  monks,  because 
dead  to  the  world,  are  incapable  of  receiving  ordination  or  per- 
forming the  sacerdotal  or  episcopal  functions.  The  sacred  synod, 
under  the  immediate  superintendency  of  his  Holiness,  proved 
by  the  soundest  logic,  that  monks  are  angels,  and  therefore 
proper  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  The  synodal  dialectics  supply 
a  beautiful  specimen  of  syllogistic  reasoning.  An  angel,  in 
Greek,  said  his  Infallibility  and  the  learned  Fathers,  is  in  the 
L atin  language,  called  a  messenger.  But  monks  are  angels,  and 
therefore  monks  are  messengers.  Monks  are  demonstrated  to 
be  angels,  by  a  very  simple  and  satisfactory  process.  All 
animals  with  six  wings  are  angels.  But  monks  have  six  wings, 

1  Orientis  partibus,  Hez,  Sire  Asnes,  etc. 
Adventavit  asinus 

Pulcher  et  fortissimus,  Ecce  magnis  auribus 

Sarcinis  aptissimus.  Subjugalis  filius 

Hez,  Sire  Asnes,  car  chantez,  Asinus  egregius 

Belle  bouche  rechignez  Asinorum  Dominus. 

Vous  atirez  du  foin  assez,  Hez,  Sire  Asnes,  etc. 

Et  de  1'avoine  a  plantez.  Saltu  vincit  hinnulos, 

Lentus  erat  pedibus,  Damas  et  capreolos. 

Nisi  foret  baculus,  Super  dromedaries, 

Et  eumin  clunibus  Velox  Madianeos. 

Pungeret  aculeus.  Hez,  Sire  Asnes,  etc. 

Du  Cange,  3.  426,  427. 


INTRODUCTION.  45 

and  therefore  monks  are  angels.  The  minor  of  this  syllogism 
is  evinced  in  a  most  conclusive  manner.  The  cowl  forms  two, 
the  arms  two,  and  the  extremeties  two  wings.  Monks,  therefore, 
have  six  wings,  and,  consequently  are  angels,  which  was  to  be 
demonstrated.1  The  annals  of  fanaticism  and  folly,  through  the 
whole  range  of  Protestant  Christendom,  afforded  no  equal  exam- 
ple of  unqualified  senselessness  and  absurdity. 

Du  Pin  and  Bruys  suspect  the  document  of  forgery.  The 
reasons  of  their  suspicion  are  its  nonsense,  frivolity,  barbarism, 
and  illogical  argument.2  These,  however,  to  persons  acquainted 
with  Roman  Councils,  are  rather  proofs  of  its  genuineness. 
Sense,  found  in  an  ancient  synodal  monument,  would  go  a 
great  way  to  prove  its  supposititiousness.  The  unwieldy  col- 
lection of  councils,  if  the  nonsense  were  subtracted,  would,  in 
a  great  measure,  disappear  from  the  view,  and  present  a  wide 
and  unmeaning  blank.  The  ponderous  folios  of  Crabbe,  Bin- 
ius,  Labbe  and  Cossart,  under  which  the  shelf  now  groans, 
would,  if  the  sense  only  were  retained,  contract  their  ample 
dimensions  and  shrink  into  the  pamphlet  or  the  primer. 

These  observations  show  the  unity  of  Protestantism,  as  well 
as  the  folly  of  Popery.  But  the  antiquity  of  Romanism  has, 
by  its  partisans,  been  contrasted  with  the  novelty  of  Protestant- 
ism, Popery,  in  the  language  of  its  advocates,  is  the  offspring 
of  antiquity ;  but  Protestantism,  the  child  of  the  Reformation. 
The  one  originated  with  the  first  heralds  of  the  Gospel ;  but 
the  other  with  Luther  and  Calvin. 

Antiquity,  however,  in  the  abstract,  is  no  criterion  of  truth. 
Superstition  is  nearly  as  old  as  religion,  and  originated  in  the 
remotest  period  of  time,  in  the  darkness  and  profanity  of  the 
antediluvian  world.  Indian  Braminism  existed  long  antece- 
dent to  Italian  Popery.  Christianity  was  preceded  by  Judaism 
and  Paganism,  and  the  Christian  revelation  by  the  Grecian  and 
Roman  mythology. 

The  truths  of  the  Gospel,  however,  must,  it  is  granted,  have 
been  known  and  professed  from  its  original  promulgation  ;  and 
the  Christian  church  has  existed  from  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  era.  The  Gospel  was  proclaimed  and  a  church 
planted  by  their  Divine  Author.  The  apostolic  heralds,  com- 
misioned  by  His  immediate  authority,  disseminated  evangelical 
truth  and  enlarged  the  Christian  society.  This  system  con- 
tinued for  some  time  in  all  its  original  purity,  unmixed  with  the 

1  Ut  cherubim,  monachi  sex  alis  velantur :  duae  in  capitio,  quo  caput  tegitur. 
Illup  vero  quod  brachiis  extenditur  duas  alas  esse  dicimus ;  et  illud  quo  corpus  con- 
ditur  alas  duas^  Sacerdotales  igitur monachi  atque  canonici  angeli  vocantur.  Labb 
6,  1358.  Beda,  718.  3  Du  Pin,  2.  7.  Bruy.  1.  410. 


40  INTRODUCTION. 

muddy  influx  of  human  folly  and  superstition.  The  friends  of 
Protestantism,  therefore  should  be  prepared  to  show  that  their 
religion  is  no  novelty ;  but  existed  from  the  origination  of  Chris- 
tianity, and  before  the  Papacy  or  the  Reformation. 

Protestantism  comprises  three  things.  These  are  the  Name, 
the  Faith,  and  the  Church,  or,  in  other  terms,  the  Appellation, 
the  Profession,  and  the  People.  The  name,  all  admit,  is,  in 
this  acceptation,  a  novelty,  which  originated  in  the  sixteenth 
century  and  as  late  as  the  days  of  Luther.  The  patrons  of  the 
Reformation  in  Germany  protested,  in  1529,  against  the  unjust 
decision  of  the  Diet  of  Spires,  and  in  consequence,  were  called 
Protestants.1  An  old  institution,  therefore,  came  to  be  distin- 
guished by  a  new  appellation.  Protestantism,  in  its  modern 
and  ecclesiastical  application,  began  to  signify  Christianity. 

But  changing  a  sign  does  not  change  the  signification. 
Britain,  according  to  the  ancient  appellation,  is  now  called 
England,  without  any  change  in  the  territory.  The  ancients 
called  that  Hibernia  which  the  moderns  call  Ireland.  France 
was  formerly  named  Gaul,  and  Columbia  lately  Terra  Firma; 
whilst  these  divisions  of  the  European  and  American  continents, 
notwithstanding  their  new  designations,  remain  the  same. 
Boniface  the  Third  was  not  transubstantiated  into  another  man, 
when,  according  to  Baronius,  he  assumed  the  new  appellation 
of  Universal  Bishop.  The  modern  Popes,  on  their  elevation  to 
the  papal  chair,  change  their  names  ;  but,  as  all  confess,  retain 
their  identity.  Catholicism,  according  to  the  primitive  designa- 
tion, began  in  this  manner  to  be  denominated  Protestantism, 
for  the  purpose  of  distinguishing  the  simplicity  of  Christianity 
from  the  superstition  of  Romanism. 

But  the  name,  in  itself,  is  unimportant.  The  sign  is  nothing 
compared  with  the  signification.  The  antiquity  of  the  PROTEST- 
ANT FAITH  is  easily  shown.  The  theology  of  the  Reformed  is 
found  in  the  Bible,  in  the  fathers,  in  the  primitive  creeds,  and 
in  the  early  councils.  Protestantism  is  contained  in  the  word 
of  God.  The  sacred  volume  is  the  great  repository  of  the  Re- 
formed faith.  The  religion,  therefore,  which  is  written  with 
sun-beams  in  the  New  Testament,  the  earliest  monument  of 
Christianity,  the  great  treasury  of  revealed  truth,  cannot  with 
any  propriety,  be  denominated  a  novelty. 

The  truths  of  Revelation  and  the  theology  of  Protestantism 
are  contained  in  the  early  fathers.  These  authors  indeed,  ac- 
cording to  the  usual  reckoning,  include  a  vast  range.  The  ec 
clesiastical  writers,  from  Clemens  to  Bernard,  from  the  Bishop 

1  Alex.  4.  566.     Mageog.  2  243. 


INTRODUCTION.  47 

r>f  Rome  to  the  Monk  of  Clairvaux,  comprising  a  period  of 
eleven  hundred  years,  have  been  denominated  Fathers.  Their 
works,  immediately  after  the  council  of  Nice,  began  to  be  in- 
fected with  popery.  Each  succeeding  author,  in  each  following 
age,  added  to  the  gathering  mass  of  error.  Superstition  accu- 
mulated. The  filth  and  mud  of  Romanism  collected,  till  the 
system  of  delusion,  or  "  the  Man'of  Sin,"  in  all  his  dimensions, 
was  completed.  The  post-Nicene  Fathers,  therefore,  may,  with 
safety  and  without  regret,  be  consigned  to  the  Vatican,  to  rust 
or  rot  with  the  lumber  and  legends  of  a  thousand  years. 

But  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers  exhibit  a  view  of  Protestantism, 
in  all  its  grand  distinctions  and  in  all  its  prominent  traits. 
These,  too,  it  must  be  observed,  were  uninspired  and  fallible, 
and  therefore,  display  no  unerring  standard  of  truth.  Many 
things  contained  in  their  works  are  exploded  both  by  the  Rom- 
ish and  Reformed,  such  as  the  Millenium,  the  administration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper  to  infants,  and  the  subterranean  repository 
of  souls  from  death  till  the  resurrection.  The  errors  and  igno- 
rance of  the  Fathers  have  been  acknowledged  by  Erasmus  and 
Du  Pin,  the  friends  of  Romanism.  The  ancient  commentators, 
says  Erasmus,  such  as  Origen,  Basil,  Gregory,  Athanasius, 
Cyril,  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  'were  men  subject 
to  failings,  ignorant  in  some  things  and  mistaken  in  others.'  Du 
Pin  makes  a  similar  concession.1  Some  errors,  says  the  Parisian 
Doctor,  were  frequent  in  the  first  ages,  which  have  since  been 
rejected.  The  ancients,  he  grants,  varied  in  terms  and  in  cir- 
cumstantials, though  they  agreed  in  essentials.  The  errors, 
however,  of  the  ante-Nicene  fathers,  which  were  many,  were 
not  the  errors  of  Romanism.  The  ecclesiastical  productions  of 
three  hundred  years  after  the  commencement  of  the  Christian 
era,  teach,  in  the  main,  the  principles  of  Protestantism. 

The  Reformed  also  recognized  the  three  pristine  creeds.  The 
Apostolic,  the  Nicene,  and  the  Athanasian  formularies  of  belief 
were  adopted  by  the  patrons  of  Protestantism,  and  have  been 
distinguished  by  their  general  reception  in  Christendom.  The 
confessions  of  Irena9us,  Origen,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Gregory, 
and  Lucian,  as  well  as  those  of  Jerusalem,  Aquileia,  and  Antioch, 
which  still  remain,  though  less  known,  are  equally  orthodox. 
All  these  agree,  in  substance,  with  the  confessions  issued  imme- 
diately after  the  Reformation,  and  believed  by  all  genuine 
Protestants  to  the  present  day. 

The  doctrinal  definitions  of  the  first  six  general  councils, 

1  Homines  erant,  quaedam  ignorabant,  in  nonnullis  hallucinati  eunt  Erasra.  5 
133.  Du  Pin,  'l.  587. 


48  INTRODUCTION. 

which  were  held  at  Nice,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon,  and  Constanti- 
nople, have  been  adopted  into  the  Reformed  theology.  The 
Nicene,  and  Byzantine  councils  declared  the  divinity  of  the  Son 
and  Spirit,  in  opposition  to  Arianism  and  Macedonianism.  The 
Ephesian,  Chalcedonian,  and  Byzantine  synods  taught  the  unity 
of  the  Son's  person  and  the  duality  of  his  nature  and  will,  in 
contradistinction  to  Nestorianism,  Eutychianism,  and  Monothe- 
litisrn.  All  these  promulgated  the  principles  of  Protestantism, 
and  are  lasting  monuments  of  its  antiquity. 

A  person  being  asked  where  Protestantism  was  before  the 
Reformation,  replied  by  asking  in  turn,  where  the  inquirer's 
face  was  that  morning  before  it  was  washed.  The  reply  was 
just.  Dirt  could  constitute  no  part  of  the  human  countenance ; 
and  washing,  which  would  remove  the  filth,  could  neither 
change  the  lineaments  of  the  human  visage  nor  destroy  its 
identity.  The  features  by  the  cleansing  application,  instead  of 
alteration,  would  only  resume  their  natural  appearance.  The 
superstition  of  Romanism,  in  like  manner,  formed  no  part  of 
Christianity ;  and  the  Reformation,  which  expunged  the  filth  of 
adulteration,  neither  new  modelled  the  form,  nor  curtailed  the 
substance  of  the  native  and  genuine  system.  The  pollutions 
of  many  ages,  indeed,  were  dismissed  ;  but  the  primitive  con- 
stitution remained.  The  heterogeneous  and  foreign  accretions, 
which  might  be  confounded  but  not  amalgamated  with  the  pri- 
mary elements,  were  exploded  :  and  deformity  and  misrepre- 
sentation gave  place  to  simplicity  and  truth. 

Popery  may  be  compared  to  a  field  of  wheat  overrun  with 
weeds.  The  weeds,  in  this  case,  are  only  obnoxious  intruders 
which  injure  the  useful  grain.  The  wheat  may  remain  and 
advance  to  maturity  with  accelerated  vegetation,  when  the 
weeds,  which  impede  its  growth,  are  eradicated.  The  super- 
stition of  Romanism,  in  the  same  manner,  like  an  exotic  and 
ruining  weed,  deformed  the  Gospel  and  counteracted  its  utility. 
The  Reformers,  therefore,  zealous  for  the  honour  of  religion  and 
truth,  and  actuated  with  the  love  of  God  and  man,  proceeded 
with  skill  and  resolution,  to  separate  Popish  inventions  from 
divine  revelation,  and  exhibited  the  latter  to  the  admiring  world 
in  all  its  striking  attraction  and  symmetry. 

But  nothing,  perhaps,  presents  a  more  striking  image  of 
Popery  than  a  person  labouring  under  a  dreadful  disorder; 
while  the  same  person,  restored  to  vigorous  health,  will  afford  a 
lively  emblem  of  Protestantism.  The  malady,  let  it  be  sup- 
posed, has  deranged  the  whole  animal  economy.  Appetite  and 
strength  fail,  and  are  succeeded  by  languor  and  debility.  The 
disease,  which  works  within,  appears  in  all  its  disgusting  effects 


INTRODUCTION.  49 

on  the  exterior,  and  produces  emaciation,  paleness,  swelling, 
ulceration,  tumour,  and  abscess.  The  whole  frame,  in  conse- 
quence, exhibits  a  mass  of  deformity.  The  patient,  in  this 
state,  affords  a  striking  picture  of  Popery.  But  a  physician,  in 
the  mean  time,  exerts  his  professional  skill.  Medical  applica- 
tions arrest  the  progress  of  disease,  and  renovate  the  functions 
of  the  whole  human  system.  Every  protuberance,  excrescence, 
suppuration,  and  pain  is  removed  by  an  unsparing  application 
of  the  lancet,  regimen,  medicine,  and  aliment.  The  blood,  in 
reviving  streams,  begins  to  flow  with  its  usual  velocity,  and  the 
pulse,  in  healthy  movements,  to  beat  with  its  accustomed  regu- 
larity. Debility  and  decay  give  place  to  vigour,  bloom,  and 
beauty.  The  healthy  subject,  in  this  state,  presents  a  portrait 
of  Protestantism;  and  the  Reformers  acted  the  part  of  the 
physician.  Religion,  by  their  skilful  exertions,  was  divested  of 
the  adventitious  and  accumulated  superadditions  of  a  thousand 
years,  and  restored  to  its  native  purity,  flourishing  in  health, 
invigorated  with  strength,  and  adorned  with  beauty.  A  patient, 
however,  does  not,  on  the  return  of  health,  become  another  per- 
son or  lose  his  identity :  neither  does  Christianity,  when  reduced 
to  its  original  state,  change  its  nature  or  become  a  novelty. 

The  faithful  existed,  at  the  earliest  period,  as  well  as  the 
faith ;  and  the  people  as  well  as  the  profession.  The  churches 
unconnected  with  the  Romish  and  rejecting  the  most  obnoxious 
abominations  of  Popery,  or  professing,  in  all  the  grand  leading 
truths,  the  principles  of  Protestantism,  were,  from  the  primitive 
times,  numerous  and  flourishing.  These  were  the  Waldensians, 
the  Greeks,  the  Nestorians,  the  Monophysites,  the  Armenians, 
and  the  Syrians. 

Western  or  European  Christendom  was  the  theatre  of  Wal- 
densianism.  The  patrons  of  this  system  were  distinguished  by 
various  appellations.  But  the  principal  branches  of  this  stock, 
were  Waldensianism,  Albigensianism,  and  Wickliffism.  These, 
however,  though  called  by  several  names,  had  one  common 
origin  and  one  common  faith — the  faith  of  Protestantism. 

Albigensianism,  indeed,  has  often  been  accused  of  Manichean- 
ism  and  Arianism.  Calumny  of  this  kind  has  been  very  com- 
mon from  the  Popish  pen  of  misrepresentation  against  this 
persecuted  denomination  of  Christians.  But  the  imputation  is 
unfounded,  and  has  been  refuted  by  Perrin,  Basnage,  Usher, 
Peyran,  and  Moreri.  Moreri,  though  attached  to  Romanism, 
has  vindicated  the  Albigensian  theology  from  this  slander  with 
generosity  and  effect.1  This  charge,  according  to  Moreri,  may 

»  Moreri,  1.234. 


50  INTRODUCTION. 

be  refuted  from  the  silence  of  original  records  ;  the  admission  of 
Popish  historians;  and  the  testimony  of  Albigensian  confessions. 

The  original  monuments,  such  as  the  Chronicle  of  Tolosa, 
the  testimony  of  Bernard,  Guido,  and  the  Councils  of  Tours  and 
Lavaur,  in  1163  and  1213,  contain  no  trace  of  this  allegation. 
The  Tolosan  Chronicle  contains  an  account  of  the  processes 
against  the  Albigensians  signed  by  the  Inquisitors,  and,  in  many 
instances,  by  the  Bishops ;  but  no  mention  is  made  of  Albigensian 
Manicheanism  or  of  Arianism.  A  similar  silence  is  preserved  by 
Bernard  and  Guido,  as  well  as  by  the  synods  of  Tolosa,  Tours, 
and  Lavaur,  that  brought  several  accusations  against  this  people.1 

The  same  appears  from  Popish  admissions.  The  Albigen- 
sians, according  to  ^Sneas  Sylvius,  Alexander,  and  Thuanus, 
were  a  branch  of  the  Waldensians,  who,  ah1  admit,  were  un- 
tainted with  the  Manichean  or  Arian  heresy.2  The  Albigensians, 
says  Alexander,  *  did  not  err  on  the  Trinity,'  and,  therefore, 
were  not  Arians.3  Bruys,  Henry,  Osca,  and  Arnold,  who 
were  the  chiefs  of  this  denomination,  were  never  accused  of 
these  errors.  Moreri,  on  this  subject,  quotes  the  admissions  of 
Mabillon,  TiUet,  Serrus,  Vignier,  Guaguin,  and  Marca,  in  vin- 
dication of  these  injured  people.4  All  these  testify  that  the 
Albigensians  differ  little  in  doctrine  from  the  Waldensians  and 
the  Reformed,  who,  aU  confess,  were  free  from  Arianism. 

This  calumny  is  repelled  by  the  Albigensian  Confessions. 
Several  of  these  remain.  One  is  preserved  in  Leger.  The 
Treatise  on  Antichrist,  written  in  1120  before  the  days  of 
Waldo,  contains  an  outline  of  the  Albigensian  theology.  Gra- 
verol  also  possessed  an  ancient  manuscript,  which  detailed  the 
persecutions  of  the  Inquisition  against  the  professors  of  Albi- 

fensianism.  The  Confession  of  Osca,  who  belonged  to  this 
enomination,  is  still  extant,  and  contains  an  outline  of  Protest- 
antism. The  Albigensians,  who  were  accused  before  the  coun- 
cil of  Lombez,  made,  in  the  synod,  a  public  profession  of  their 
faith.  All  these  records  reject  the  Manichean  and  Arian  errors, 
and  include,  in  the  essentials,  the  faith  of  the  Reformation. 
The  accused,  at  Lombez,  professed  then*  belief  in  one  God  in 


*  Bened.  14.     Labb.  12.  1284.  et  13.  841.     Du  Pin,  2,  32. 

*  Ab  ecclesia  Catholica  recedentes,  impiam  Waldensium  sectam  atque  insanam 
aroplexi  sunt.     Aen.  Sylv.  c.  35.     Albigenses  Waldensium  ease  progeniem.     Alex. 
20. 268.     Pauperes  Lugdunenses,  Albigei  dicti  sunt.    Thuan.  1.  222.  Du  Pin,  1.  318. 

3  Non  hi  circa  Trinitatis  fidem  erraverint.     Alexan.  20.  269.     Mabil.  3.  456. 

4  Us  etoieut  dans  lea  memes  sentimens  que  lea  Reformez.     Leurs  sentimenj 
etoient  les  memes  que  ceux,  qui  out  etc  renouvellez  par  Wiclef  et  par  Luther. 
Moreri,  1.  235. 

Ills  n'y  avoient  pas  grande  difference  de  doctrine  entre  les  Albigeois  et  Vaudois. 
Vignier," 3.  233. 


INTRODUCTION.  51 

three  persons,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit;  and  therefore  dis 
claimed  Arianism,  as  well  as  Manicheanism.1 

A  few  Manicheans  and  Arians,  indeed,  who  lived  among  the 
Albigensians,  united,  as  appears  from  Laurentius  and  Guido, 
with  the  latter  denomination  to  oppose  their  common  persecu- 
tors. These,  though  differing  among  themselves,  conspired 
against  the  Roman  community,  and,  in  consequence,  were  con- 
founded by  the  Inquisitors.  The  common  enemy,  therefore, 
ascribed  the  errors  of  the  one  to  the  other.  Laurentius  wrote 
during  the  hottest  persecutions  of  the  Albigensians,  whom  he 
distinguished  from  the  Manicheans  and  Arians.  Guido  was  a 
Dominican  persecutor,  and  wrote  in  the  Tolosan  Chronicle.2 

The  antiquity  of  the  Waldensians  is  admitted  by  their  ene- 
mies, and  is  beyond  all  question.  Waldensianism,  says  Rai- 
nerus  the  Dominican,  '  is  the  ancientest  heresy  ;  and  existed, 
according  to  some,  from  the  time  of  Silvester,  and,  according  to 
others,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.'3  This  is  the  reluctant 
testimony  of  an  Inquisitor  in  the  thirteenth  century.  He  grants 
that  Waldensianism  preceded  every  other  heresy. 

The  Waldensians,  say  Rainerus,  Seysel,  and  Alexander, 
dated  their  own  origin  and  the  defection  of  the  Romish  Com- 
munion from  the  Papacy  of  Silvester.4  Leo,  who  flourished  in 
the  reign  of  Constantine,  they  regard  as  their  founder.  Roman- 
ism, at  this  period,  ceased  to  be  Christianity,  and  the  inhabi- 
tants of  the  valleys  left  the  unholy  communion.  These  simple 
shepherds  lived,  for  a  long  series  of  years,  in  the  sequestered  re- 
cesses of  the  Alpine  retreats,  opposed  to  Popish  superstition 
and  error. 

The  Waldensians,  as  they  were  ancient,  were  also  numerous.5 
Vignier,  from  other  historians,  gives  a  high  idea  of  their  popu- 
lousness.  The  Waldensians,  says  this  author,  multiplied  won- 
derfully in  France,  as  well  as  in  other  countries  of  Christendom. 
They  had  many  patrons  in  Germany,  France,  Italy,  and  espe- 
cially in  Lombardy,  notwithstanding  the  Papal  exertions  for 
their  extirpation. 

This  sect,  says  Nangis,  were  infinite  in  number  ;  appeared, 

1  Pour  1'  essentiel,  leur  doctrine  etoit  conforme  a  celle  des  Vaudois  et  des  Protes 
tans      Osca  a  laisse  une  confession  de  foi,  dont  les  articles  accordent  avec  la  doc 
trine  des  Reformez.     Moreri,  1.  234,  235.     Du  Pin,  325.     Labb.  13.  384. 

2  Moreri,  1.  234. 

3  Aliqut  enim  dicunt,  quod  duravit  a  tempore  Sylvestri ;  aliqui  a  tempore  Apos- 
tolorum.     Rainerus,  3.  4. 

4  Romana  ecclesia  non  est  ecclesia  Jesu  Christi,  sed  ecclesia  malignantitim,  eamque 
sub  Sylvestro  deficisse.     Alex.   17.  368.     Seysel,  9.  Moreri.  8.  47. 

5  Les  Vaudois  se  trouverent  merveilleusement  multipliez,  tant  en  France  qu'en 
autres  contr6esi  de  la  Chretient6.    Us  avoient  grand  nombre  des  complicees  et  adhe« 
rans,  tant  en  1'  Allemagne,  qu'en  France  et  Italie,  specialement  en  la  Lombardie 
Vignier,  3.  283,  393. 

4* 


62  INTRODUCTION. 

says  Rainerus,  in  nearly  every  country ;  multiplied,  says  San- 
derus,  through  all  lands ;  infected,  says  Caesarius,  a  thousand 
cities,  and  spread  their  contagion,  says  Ciaconius,  through  al- 
most the  whole  Latin  world.  Scarcely  any  region,  says  Gret- 
zer,  remained  free  and  untainted  from  this  pestilence.1  The 
Waldensians,  says  Popliner,  spread,  not  only  through  France, 
but  also  through  nearly  all  the  European  coasts,  and  appeared 
in  Gaul,  Spain,  England,  Scotland,  Italy,  Germany,  Bohemia, 
Saxony,  Poland,  and  Lithuania.2  Matthew  Paris  represents 
this  people  as  spread  through  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Dalmatia, 
Spain,  and  Germany.  Their  number,  according  to  Benedict, 
was  prodigious  in  France,  England,  Piedmont,  Sicily,  Calabria, 
Poland,  Bohemia,  Saxony,  Pomerania,  Germany,  Livonia,  Sar- 
matia,  Constantinople,  Philadelphia,  and  Bulgaria.3 

Thuanus  and  Moreri  represent  the  Waldensians,  as  dispersed 
through  Germany,  Poland,  Livonia,  Italy,  Apulia,  Calabria,  and 
Provence.4  Persecuted  by  the  Inquisition,  this  simple  people 
fled  into  England,  Switzerland,  Germany,  France,  Bohemia, 
Poland,  and  Piedmont,  and  became,  says  Newburg,  like  the 
sand  of  the  sea,  without  number  in  Gaul,  Spain,  Italy,  and 
Germany.5 

The  Diocese  of  Passau,  it  was  computed,  contained  forty 
Waldensian  schools  and  eighty  thousand  Waldensian  popula- 
tion.6 The  Albigensian  errors,  according  to  Daniel,  infected  all 
Languedoc  and  corrupted  the  nobility  and  the  populace.7  The 
Romish  temples,  according  to  Bernard,  were  left  without  people, 
the  people  without  pastors,  and  the  pastors  without  respect.8 

The  number  of  the  Albigensians  appears  from  the  army  which 

1  Infinitus  erat  numerus.     Nangis,  An.  1207.     Dachery,  3.  22. 
Fere  enim  nulla  est  terra,  in  qua  haec  secta  non  sit.     Rain.  c.  4.     Per  omnes 
terras  multiplicati  sunt.    Sanderus,  VII.  Infecerunt  usque  ad  mille  civitates.  Caesar. 

V.  21.     Totum  fere  Latinum  orbera  infecisse.     Ciacon.  525. 

Vix  aliqua  regio,  ab  hac  peste,  immunis  et  intacta,  remansit.     Gretz.  c.  1. 

*  Non  per  Galliam  solum  totam  sed  etiam  per  omnes  pene  Europae  oras.  Poplin. 

•Albigenses  in  finibus  Bulgarorum,  Croatiae,  et  Dalmatiae.  M.  Paris,  306. 
Albigenses  in  partibus  Hispaniae  et  illis  regionibus,  invaluerunt.  M.  Paris,  381. 
IU  se  disperserent  dans  les  vallees  de  Piemont,  dans  la  Sicile,  la  Calabre,  Pouille  et 
la  Boheme.  L'Allemagne,  qui  n'en  etoit  pas  moins  remplie.  Bened.  2.  243 — 248. 

4Pars  in  Germaniam  et  Sarmatiam,  et  inde  in  Livoniam  usque  ad  extremum  sep- 
tentriouern  transmigravit.  Pars  in  Italiam  profecta  in  Apulia  et  Calabria  consedit. 
Pars  denique  in  Provincia  nostralocis  incultis  et  asperis  latuit.  Thuan.  XXVII.  8. 

VI.  16.     Us  s'en  retira  un  bon  nombre  en  Angleterre,  en  Suisse,  en  Boheme,  en 
Bologne,  et  dans  les  vallees  de  Piemont.     Moreri,  8.  48. 

5  In  latissimis  Galliae,  Hispaniae,  Italiae,  Germaniaeque  provinciis  turn  multi 
hac  peste  infecti  esse  dicuntur,  ut  secundum  prophetam,  multiplicati  esse,  super 
numerum  areuae  videantur.  Labb.  13.  285.  Newburg.  II.  13. 

*  Computatae  sunt  scholae  in  diocaesi  Passaviensi,  40.  Rain.  c.  3. 

f  Les  erreurs  avoient  infecte  tout  le  Languedoc,  et  autant  corrompu  1'eBprit  da 
Noblesse,  que  celui  du  peuple.  Daniel,  3,  510. 

*  Basilicae  sine  plebe,  plobes  sine  saccrdote.     Bernard.     Ep,  240. 


INTRODUCTION.  53 

they  equipped  against  the  crusaders.  Benedict  reckons  the 
Albigensian  army  against  Count  Montfort  at  100,000  men.1 
The  French,  according  to  the  same  historians,  sent  300,000 
warriors,  who,  under  the  holy  banners  of  the  cross,  went  to 
combat  the  heretics  of  Languedoc.  Waldensian  bravery,  even 
according  to  his  partial  relation,  withstood  for  near  two  hundred 
years,  the  vigilance  of  pontiffs,  the  piety  of  bishops,  the  zeal  of 
monarchs,  and  the  magnanimity  of  warriors ;  and  injured  the 
church  in  the  west,  as  much  as  the  infidels  in  the  east.  The 
heterodox  army  of  the  Albigensians,  adds  the  historian,  had 
nearly  on  one  occasion,  overwhelmed  the  holy  warriors  of  the 
cross.  Any  other  hero  but  Montfort,  if  Benedict  may  be 
believed,  would  have  despaired  of  success  and  abandoned  his 
conquests.  The  church  could  oppose  to  the  storm  only  prayers, 
tears,  and  groans ;  while  the  Albigensians,  in  triumphant  anti- 
cipation, hoped  to  establish  heresy  on  the  ruins  of  Romanism. 

Waldensianism  was,  in  anticipation,  a  system  of  the  purest 
Protestantism,  many  ages  before  the  Reformation.  This,  in  its 
fullest  sense,  has,  with  the  utmost  candour,  been  acknowledged 
by  many  cotemporary  and  succeeding  historians  who  were 
attached  to  Romanism.  The  conformity  of  the  Waldensian 
with  the  Reformed  faith  may  be  shown  from  Popish  statements 
and  admissions,  and  from  Waldensian  confessions. 

The  following  statements  are  taken  from  the  unexceptionable 
authority  of  Sylvius,  Petavius,  Gaufridus,  Serrus,  Marca, 
Thuanus,  More,  Vignier,  and  Alexander.2  The  Waldensians, 
according  to  Sylvius,  afterward  Pius  the  Second,  in  his  History  of 
Bohemia,  rejected  the  papacy,  purgatory,  image-worship,  sacra- 

1  II  se  forma  une  armee  de  cent  mille  hommes.     Bened.  1.  6,  228,  100,  214. 

2  Purgatorium  ignem  nullum  inveniri :  vanum  esse  orare  pro  mortals :  Dei  et 
Sanctorum  imagines  delendas ;  confirmationem  et  extremam  unctionem  inter  eccle- 
siae  Sacramenta  minime  contineri :  auricularem  confessionem  nugacem  esse.   Sylv. 
c.  35.     Non  esse  obediendum  Pontifici  Romano  :    Indulgentias  nihil  valere :   non 
extare  Purgatorium :  sanctos  non  attendere  precibus  nostris :  festa  et  jejunia  indicta 
non  esse  servauda  et  alia.     Petavis,  2.  225.     Us  declament  contre  1'eglise,  centre 
ses  ceremonies,  contre  ses  dogmes.     Us  tournent  sa  hierarchie  en  derision.     Us 
disent,  que  le  purgatoire  eat  une  fable,  que  la  priere  pour  lea  morts  est  une  illusion, 
que  1'invocation  des  saints,  que  leculte  de  leurs  images  est  une  foiblesse.  Gaufrid  2. 
458.    Us  rejettoient  le  culte  des  images,  le  purgatoire,  merite  des  ceuvres,  les  indulg- 
ences, les  pelerinages,  les  vceux,  1'invocation  des  saints,  et  le  celibat  des  pretres.  Mo- 
reri,  1.235.  Ecclesiam  Romanam,  Babylonicam  meretricem  esse :  monasticam  vitam 
ecclesise  sentinam  ac  Plutonium  esse:  vana illius vota :  ignem purgatorium,  solemne 
sacrum,  templorum   encaenia,  cultum  sanctorum,   ac  pro  mortuis  propitiatorium 
Satanse  commenta  esse.    Thuan.  1.  221.   Auricularem  confessionem  prorsus  toll unt. 
Docent  imagines  esse  tollendas  ab  ecclesia.    Indulgentias  contemnunt.    Decent,  &c. 
More,  387.     Us  nioyent  la  transubstantiation  et  le  purgatoire,  disans  que  les  pri- 
eres  et  suffrages  des  vivans  ne  servent  de  rien  aux  trespassez.     N'  attribuoyent 
aussi  aucune  authorite  au  Pape  ;    meprisans  toutes  les  traditions  de  1'  eglise,  meme- 
ment  1'  institution  des  fetes  et  des  jeunes.   comme  aussi  de  1'  extreme  onction. 
Vignier,  3.  283. 


54  INTRODUCTION. 

mental  confession,  extreme  unction,  invocation  of  saints,  prayer 
for  the  dead,  and  the  use  of  oil  and  chrism  in  baptism.  Peta- 
vius  represents  the  Christians  of  the  valleys  as  opposed  to  the 
papal  supremacy,  indulgences,  purgatory,  fast,  festivals,  and 
saint-invocation.  The  Waldensians,  says  Gaufridus  in  his  his- 
tory of  Provence,  disseminated  their  poison  till  the  origin  of  Luther- 
anism,  and  derided  the  Romish  hierarchy,  dogmas,  rituals,  pur- 
gatory, saint-invocation,  image-worship,  and  prayer  for  the  dead. 
Serrus  and  Marca,  quoted  by  Moreri,  mention  the  Waldensian 
rejection  of  the  supremacy,  transubstantiation,  purgatory,  indul- 
gences, pilgrimages,  festivals,  tradition,  image- worship,  decre- 
tals of  the  church,  intercession  of  saints,  merit  of  works,  and 
celibacy  of  the  clergy.  Thuanus  details  their  disclaiming  of 
the  Romish  church,  pontiff,  festivals,  mass,  monkery,  purgatory, 
worship  of  saints,  and  prayer  for  the  dead  :  and  More  and  Vig- 
nier  deliver  a  similar  statement  on  the  subject  of  Waldensian 
theology.  / 

The  following  is  an  outline  of  Alexander's  impartial  state- 
ment, which  the  learned  Sorbonnist  supports  by  the  testimony 
of  the  original  historians,  Rainerus,  Seysel,  Bernard,  Pilichdorff, 
and  Ebrardus  de  Bethunia.  '  The  text  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
is  to  be  received,  in  opposition  to  traditions  and  comments. 
The  Pope  is  the  head  of  all  errors.  The  sacraments  are  only 
two,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  Baptism  is  not  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  salvation.  Transubstantiation  or  the 
corporal  presence  is  unscriptural.  Penance,  matrimony,  con- 
firmation, extreme  unction,  and  holy  orders  are  no  sacraments. 
The  church  erred,  when  it  enjoined  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy. 
Dispensations,  indulgences,  relics,  canonizations,  vigils,  fasts, 
festivals,  purgatory,  altars,  consecrations,  incensing,  processions, 
exorcisms,  holy  water,  sacerdotal  vestments,  annual  confession, 
modern  miracles,  sacred  burial,  and  saint-invocation,  all  these 
the  Waldensians  despised  and  rejected.  Remission  of  sin  is 
obtained  through  the  merits  of  Jesus.  No  sin  is  venial,  but  ah1 
are  mortal.  The  Virgin  Mary  herself  is  not  to  be  worshipped. 
The  Waldensians  had  just  thoughts  of  God  and  Jesus,  and, 
therefore,  in  Alexander's  opinion,  were  Trinitarians.  Rainerus 
himself  clears  them  of  the  blasphemy  of  Manicheanism  and 
Arianism.  Christian  pastors,  are  to  be  ordained  by  the  impo- 
sition of  hands  ;  and  elders,  besides,  should  be  chosen  to  govern 
the  people.' 1  The  Parisian  doctor's  portrait  of  Waldensianism 
presents  a  picture  of  Protestantism  taken  from  life. 

1  Solum  Scripturae  sacrae  textum  recipiebant.  Traditiones,  expositiones  patrum, 
decreta,  et  decretales  rejiciebant.  Papa  est  omnium  errorumcaput.  Duo  tan  turn 
sacramenta  ee  credere  profitentur,  baptismum  et  eucharistiam.  Baptismum,  ipsoi 


INTRODUCTION.  55 

The  admissions  of  Romish  historians,  bear  testimony  to  the 
conformity  of  Waldensianism  and  Albigensianism,  with  Protest- 
antism. This  conformity  has  been  admitted  among  others,  by 
Gratius,  Popliner,  Alexander,  Mezeray,  Gaufridus,  Moreri, 
Tillet,  Serrus,  Evenswyn,  and  Marca.  The  Waldensians,  says 
Gratius,  '  differed  little  from  the  Reformed  in  any  thing.'  Pop- 
liner  admits  '  their  near  approximation  to  the  Protestant  faith.' 
Alexander  acknowledges  the  same  conformity,  and  Luther's 
approbation  of  the  Waldensian  confession,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Reformation.  '  The  Henricians  and  Waldensians,1 
says  Mezeray,  '  held  nearly  the  same  dogmas  as  the  Calvinists.' 
According  to  Gaufridus,  '  the  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  praised 
the  learning,  disinterestedness,  and  morality  of  the  Walden- 
sians, and  consulted  them  as  oracles  on  points  of  religion.' 
Moreri,  Tillet,  Serrus,  Evenswyn,  and  Marca,  grant  '  the  agree- 
ment of  the  Waldensian  faith,  in  all  the  principal  articles  with 
the  Reformed  theology.' * 

The  Waldensian  Confessions,  issued  on  several  "occasions, 
show  the  conformity  of  their  principles  to  Protestantism.  The 
Waldensiaris,  who,  to  avoid  persecution,  had  removed  into  Bo- 
hemia and  Moravia,  published  their  Confession  in  1504.  This 
formulary  of  belief  was  presented  to  King  Ladislaus,  in  vindi- 
cation of  their  character  from  the  slanderous  accusations  of  the 
Papists  and  Calixtines.  The  same  people  published  another 
Confession  in  1535.  This  was  compiled  from  older  documents, 
and  presented  by  the  Bohemian  nobility  to  the  Emperor  Ferdi- 
nand. This  celebrated  production,  as  Alexander  states,  'was 
prefaced  and  approved  by  Luther,  and  praised  by  Bucer  and 


non  existimasse  absolute  necessarium  ad  salutem.  Waldenses  transubstantiatioiiem 
non  admittebant.  Confessionem  anuuam  rejiciebant.  Poenitentiam  ex  sacramen- 
torum  numero  expungebant.  Matrimonium,  sacramentum  esse  negabant.  Ecclesiatn 
errasse  dicebant,  cum  caelibatum  clflricis  indixit.  Sacramentum  unctionis  extremae 
rejiciunt.  Infirmum  adhortabantur,  ut  certain  fiduclam  et  securitatem  remissionis 
peccatorum  per  merita  Christi  haberet,  Sacramentum  ovclinis  rejiciebant.  Dispen- 
sationes  ecclesiae  et  indulgentias  respuebant.  Sanctorum  invocationem  impugnabant 
reliquias,  translationes,  canonizationes,  vi^ilias,  festivitates  sanctorum  contemnebant. 
Miraculis  nullam  adhibebaut  fidem.  Electos  Dei,  immo,  ipsam  Christi  genetricem 
honorandos  negabant.  Purgatorium  negabant.  Ecclesias,  altaria,  eorum  consecra- 
tiones,  ornatum  etsupellectilem,  sacerdotalia  indumenta,  luminaria,  thurificatione*, 
aquam  benedictam,  processiones,  aliosque  sacros  ritus  rejiciebant  et  deridebant. 
Sacram  sepulturam  nihili  faciebant.  Exorcismos  impugnabant.  Ecclesiastica jejuuia, 
quasi  idolatriam  et  superstitionem  redolentia  aversabantur.  Nullum  veni;ile  pec- 
catum,  sed  omnia  mortalia.  Waldenses  puros  de  Deo  et  Christo  recte  sensisse. 
Rainerus  ipsos  a  Manichaeoru  tn  et  Arianorum  blasphemiis  absolvit.  Waldensea 
pastores  habebant;  ad  praedicandi  munus,  impositione  manuum  admittebantur. 
Seniores  praetereaad  regendum  populum  eligebant.  Alex.  17.  370 — 388. 

1  Non  multum  alicubi  dissentiunt  ab  iis.  Gratius  in  Fascicul.  85.  Doctrinair. 
suam  ab  eo  quam  hodie  Protestantes  amplectuutur  parum  difierentum  tlidsemiua 
runt.  Popliner,  1.7. 


56  INTRODUCTION. 

Melancthon.1  Oecolompadius,  Beza,  and  Bullinger,  also  recog 
nized  these  people,  though  despised  and  persecuted,  as  a  con- 
stituent part  of  the  great  Christian  Commonwealth.  The 
Lutherans  and  Zuingh'ans,  in  this  manner,  acknowledged  the 
Waldensians  as  Christians,  and  their  faith  as  the  truth  of  the 
Gospel.  The  Waldensians  also  published  a  Confession  in  the 
reign  of  Francis  the  First.  This,  in  1544,  was  followed  by 
another,  which,  in  1551,  was  transmitted  to  the  French  King 
and  read  in  the  Parisian  Parliament.  All  these  are  in  strict 
harmony  with  the  Reformed  Theology ;  and  all  breathe  the 
spirit  and  teach  the  truths  of  Christianity.2  This  same  people, 
as  late  as  in  1819,  in  a  Confession  found  among  the  manu- 
scripts of  Peyran,  declared  their  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  churches  of  England,  Netherlands,  Germany,  Prussia,  Swit- 
zerland, Poland,  and  Hungary  ;  and  entreated  these  commu- 
nions and  others  settled  in  America,  to  regard  them,  though  few 
and  destitute,  as  members  of  the  same  ecclesiastical  body. 

The  sanctity  of  Waldensian  morality  corresponded  with  the 
purity  of  the  Waldensian  faith.  The  piety,  benevolence,  inno- 
cence, and  holiness  of  this  people  have  challenged  the  esteem 
and  extorted  the  approbation  of  friend  and  foe,  of  the  protes- 
tant,  the  papist,  and  even  the  inquisitor.  Many  partizans  of 
popery  have  concurred  with  the  patrons  of  protestantism  in  their 
eulogy.  The  following  character  of  this  people  is  taken  from 
Rainerus,  Seysel,  Lewis,  Hagec,  Alexander,  Labbe",  Gaufrid, 
and  Thuanus. 

Rainerus,  quoted  by  Alexander,  admits  '  their  show  of  piety 
.i.nd  integrity  before  men.'  This  is  pretty  well  fora  Dominican 
Inquisitor,  who  discovered,  however,  that  Waldensian  piety 
was  mere  dissimulation.  But  Rainerus  also  acknowledges 
*  their  sobriety,  modesty,  chastity,  and  temperance,  with  their 
aversion  to  taverns,  balls,  vanity,  anger,  scurrility,  detraction, 
levity,  swearing,  and  falsehood.  He  grants  their  attention,  men 

1  Quod  mine,  quoqne,  Calvinistae  nostri  faciunt.     Alex.  17.  375. 

Lutherus  hanc  Vaklensium  Bohemorum  Confessionem  approbavit.    Alex.  17.  401. 

Henericiens  et  Vaudois  tenoient  a  peu  pi-es  les  memes  dogmesque  les  Calvinistes. 
Mezeray,  2.  577.  Les  Lutheriens  et  les  Calvinistes  commencerent  alouer  leur  mani- 
£re  de  vivre  :  leur  disinteresement,  leurs  lumieres.  On  commenca  a  les  consulter 
comme  des  oracles  sur  les  points  de  la  religion.  Gaufrid.  2.  458. 

Leur  doctrine  est  conforme  a  celle  des  reformez,  dans  les  principaux  articles. 
Moreri,  8,  48.  Tillet  croit  qu'ils  etoient  dans  les  memes  sentimens  que  les  Refor- 
mez. Serres  declare  que  leurs  sentimens  etoient  les  memes  que  ceux  qui  ont  ete 
renouvellez  par  Wiclif  et  par  Luther.  Moreri,  1.  235. 

Evenswyn  dit  que  les  Albigeois  etoient  dans  les  memes  sentimens  que  l«s  Refor- 
mez.    M area  parle  des  Albigeois  a  peu  pres  de  la  meme  maniere  que  les  Reib 
Moreri,  1.  235. 

Prsefatus  est  honorifice  Lutherus.     Alex.  17.  405,  406. 

«  Du  Pin,  3,  250.     Thuan.  2.  82.     Benedict,  260. 


INTRODUCTION.  57 

and  women,  young  and  old,  night  and  day,  to  leaix  mg  or 
teaching;  and  he  had  seen  a  Waldensian  rustic,  who  repealed 
Job,  word  for  word,  and  many  who  perfectly  knew  the  whole 
of  the  New  Testament.' 1 

Seysel  acknowledged  '  their  purity  of  life,  which  excelled 
that  of  other  Christians.'  Lewis,  the  French  King,  asserted 
*  their  superiority,  both  to  himself  and  to  his  other  subjects, 
who  were  professors  of  Catholicism.'  Hagec  admits  *  their 
simplicity  of  habits  and  their  show  of  piety,'  under  which,  how- 
ever, his  penetration  enabled  him  exclusively  to  discover  *  their 
miscreancy.'  His  eyes  must  have  been  very  clear  to  discern 
miscreancy  through  such  distinguished  simplicity  and  piety. 
Alexander  pourtrays  l  their  disposition  to  love  their  enemies,  to 
live,  if  possible,  in  peace  with  all  men,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to 
avoid  revenge,  judicial  litigation,  love  of  the  world,  and  the 
company  of  the  wicked.'  Alexander,  also  vindicates  the  Wal- 
densians  from  the  calumny  of  Ebrard  and  Emeric,  who  had 
iccused  them  of  avarice,  lewdness,  and  unchastity.  Labbe, 
like  Rainerus  and  Hagec,  allows  the  Waldensians '  a  pretended 
show  of  piety.'  The  Jesuit,  of  course,  must,  like  the  inquisitor 
and  the  historian,  have  been  a  notable  discerner  of  hearts. 
Gaufridus  mentions '  their  industry,  which,  in  a  superior  manner 
cultivated  the  lands  and  increased  the  national  revenue.' 
Thuanus  records  'their  detestation  of  perjury,  imprecations, 
scurrility,  litigation,  sedition,  gluttony,  drunkenness,  whoredom, 
divination,  sacrilege,  theft,  and  usury.'  He  mentions  their 
chastity,  which  they  accounted  a  particular  honour,  their  culti- 
vation of  manners,  their  knowledge  of  letters,  their  expertness 
in  writing,  and  their  skill  in  French.  A  boy  could  scarcely  be 
found  among  them,  but,  if  questioned  on  his  religion,  could, 
with  readiness,  give  a  reason  for  his  faith.  Tribute,  they  paid 
with  the  utmost  punctuality ;  and  if  prevented  for  a  time  by 
civil  war,  they  discharged  this  debt  on  the  return  of  peace.'2 

1  Magnam  habet  speciem  pietatis,  eo  quod  coram  hominibus  juste  vivunt.  Sunt 
in  moribus,  compositi  et  modesti.  Casti  etiam  sunt,  maxime  Leonistae,  temperati 
hi  cibo  et  potu.  Ad  tabernas  non  eunt,  nee  ad  choreas,  nee  ad  alias  vanitates.  Ab 
ira  se  cohibent.  Cavent  a  scurrilitate,  detractione,  verborum  levitate,  mendacio, 
et  juramento.  Omnes,  viri  et  foeminse,  parvi  et  magni,  die  noctuque  docent  vel 
discunt.  Vidi  quendam  rusticum,  qui  Job  recitavit,  de  verbo  ad  verbum;  et 
plures,  qui  totum  Novum  Testamentum  perfecte  Bciverunt.  Rain.  c.  4,  7,  9. 
Alex.  17,  38,  390,  393. 

8  Puriorem  quam  caeteri  Christiani  vitam  agunt.     Seysel,  92.  Alex.  17.  387. 

Me  et  csetero  populo  meo  Catholico,  meliores  illi  viri  sunt.  Gamer.  419.  11* 
savoient  cacher  leur  mechancete  sous  des  habits  fort  simples,  et  sous  une  grande 
apparence  de  piete.  Hagec,  550.  Lenfan.  1.  10. 

Has  conversations  external  regulas  proponebant.  Mundum  non  diligere,  malo- 
rum  consortium  fugere,  pacem  habere  cum  omnibus,  quantum  fieri  potest,  non 
contendere  in  judicio,  non  ulcisci  injurias,  inimicos  amare.  Alex.  17.  399 


58  INTRODUCTION. 

The  Waldensians,  notwithstanding  the  sanguinary  persecu- 
tions of  Romanism,  still  exist,  and  still  are  persecuted  in  their 
native  valleys.  A  population  of  twenty  thousand  always  remain, 
arid  exhibit,  to  an  admiring  world,  all  the  grandeur  of  truth  and 
all  the  beauty  of  holiness.  Their  relics  still  show  what  they 
have  been,  and  they  continue  unaltered  amid  the  revolution  of 
ages.  The  world  has  changed  around  this  sacred  society ;  while 
its  principles  and  practice,  through  all  the  vicissitudes  of  time, 
live  immutably  the  same.  The  Waldensian  church,  though 
despised  by  the  Roman  hierarchy,  illuminated,  in  this  manner, 
the  dark  ages ;  and  appears,  in  a  more  enlightened  period,  the 
clearest  drop  in  the  ocean  of  truth,  and  shines  the  brightest 
consteUation  in  the  firmament  of  holiness  ;  sparkles  the  richest 
gem  in  the  diadem  of  Immanuel,  and  blooms  the  fairest  flower 
in  the  garden  of  God. 

Romanism,  renounced,  in  this  manner,  in  the  West  by  the 
Waldenses,  was  opposed  in  the  East  by  the  Greeks,  Nestorians, 
Jacobites,  Armenians,  and  Syrians.  The  Greeks  occupy 
European  Turkey  and  the  Mediterranean  Islands;  and  are 
dispersed,  though  in  fewer  numbers,  through  Mesopotamia, 
Syria,  Cilicia,  Palestine,  Georgia  and  Mingrelia.  The  religion 
of  the  Greek  Church  is  also  the  religion  of  European  and 
Asiatic  Russia,  comprehending  a  territory  more  extensive  than 
the  empire  of  Alexander  or  Tamerlane.  The  Greeks,  as  they 
possess  an  extensive  country,  comprehend  a  numerous  people. 
The  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  says  Allatius,  quoted  by 
Thomassin,  governed,  in  the  eleventh  century,  sixty-five  Metro- 
politans and  more  than  six  hundred  bishops.1 

The  Greeks,  indeed,  agree  not  with  modern  Protestants  in 
all  things.  Some  of  the  Orientals  had  drunk  more  and  some 
less  from  the  muddy  fountain  of  human  invention,  according  1o 
the  period  of  their  connexion  with  the  Romish  communion. 
The  Greeks  continued  longest  in  conjunction  with  the  Latins; 
and  in  consequence,  have  imbibed  most  corruption.  The  assimi- 
lation indeed  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  communions  is,  in 
many  points,  close  and  striking.  The  Greeks,  however,  concur  to 
a  man,  in  opposing  Papal  usurpation  and  tyranny ;  in  denying  that 
the  Romish  is  the  true  church ;  and  in  condemning  the  dogmas  of 

Popinarum  frequentatiouem  proliibebant.  Alex.  17.389.  Praetenta  specie  pie'ta- 
tis.  Labbeus,  13.  285.  Us  s'appliquerent  a  cultiver  la  terre  avec  tant  d'industrie, 
que  les  Seigneurs  en  augmeuterent  considerablement  leurs  revenus.  Gaufride,  2. 
458.  Omnem  a  se  ac  suis  coetibus  iniquitatem  eliminare  illicitas  dejeratiories 
perjuria,  diras,  imprecationes,  contumelias,  rixas,  seditiones,  &c.  Thuan.  2.  85, 
89/91. 

1  Le  Patriarche  de  Constantinople  dominoit  encore  &  soixante-cinq  Metropoli 
tains,  et  a  plus  de  six  cens  evesques.  Tho.  Part  IV.  2-17.  Allat.  I.  24. 


INTRODUCTION.  59 

purgatory,  supererogation,  half-communion,  human  merit,  cle- 
rical celibacy,  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  restricting  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Bible.  The  Greeks  excommunicate  the  Roman 
pontiff  and  ah1  the  Latin  episcopacy,  as  the  abettors  of  schism 
and  heresy.  Prateolus,  Fisher,  More,  Renaudot,  Guido,  Inno- 
cent, BeUarmine,  and  Aquinas  confess  the  Grecian  disbelief  in 
purgatory  and  in  the  utility  of  supplications  for  the  dead.  Their 
rejection  of  confirmation  and  extreme  unction  is  testified  by 
Simon ;  while  their  belief  in  the  divine  obligation  of  communi- 
cating in  both  kinds  is  declared  by  Simon,  Prateolus,  and  More. 
Thevenot  and  Le  Bruges  testify  the  Greek  proscription  of  pur- 
gatory, the  pontifical  supremacy,  and  communion  in  one  kind.1 

The  Greeks  have  shewed  great  resolution  in  opposing  papal 
despotism.  Thomassin  complains  of  their  peculiar  unwilling- 
ness, beyond  all  the  other  Orientals,  to  acknowledge  the  ponti- 
fical supremacy.  Matthew  Paris  deprecates  their  open  or  con- 
cealed hostility,  on  all  occasions,  to  Romanism,  and  their  blas- 
phemy against  its  sacraments.  Baldwin,  the  Grecian  Emperor, 
honored  the  Latins  with  the  name,  not  of  men,  but  of  dogs  ; 
and  this  seems  to  have  been  their  common  appellation  for  all  the 
partisans  of  popery.  The  Greeks,  says  the  Lateran  Council, 
detest  the  Latins,  rebaptize  those  whom  they  admit  to  their 
communion,  and  wash  the  altars  on  which  the  Romish  clergy 
celebrate  mass,  and  which,  in  their  mind,  had  been  polluted 
with  the  defilement  of  the  popish  sacrament.2 

The  Mingrelians,  who  belong  to  the  Greek  church,  appear 


1  Us  ne  reconnoisent  point  absolument  la  primaut6   de  Pape.     Us  ni( 
1'  eglise  Romaine  soit  la  veritable   eglise.     Us  excommunient  le  Pape,  et 


nient  que 
et  tous  les 

eveques  Latins,  comme  Heretiques  et  schismatiques.     SIMON  c.  1.    'Graeci  omnes 
Latinos,  excommunicates  reputant.     Canisius,  4.  433. 

Docent  nullum  purgatorium.  Prateol.  VII.  Graecis  ad  hunc  usque  diem,  non 
est  creditum  purgatorium  esse.  Fisher,  Art.  1 8.  Docent  esse  nullum  purgatorium 
locum.  More,  199.  Nee  tertium  ilium  locum,  quern  purgatorium  appellamus 
agnoscunt.  Renaudot,  2.  105.  Idem  tribuitur  Graecis  a  Guidone.  Bell.  1.  1370. 
Locum  purgationis  hujusmodi  dicunt  (Graeci)  non  fuisse.  Innocent,  4.  Ep.  ad 
Otton.  Du  Fresne,  5.  931.  Credibile  est,  Graecos  de  hac  haeresi  saltern  suspectos 
fuisse;  nam  B.  THOMAS,  in  opusculo  contra  Graecos,  refellit  etiam  hunc  errorem. 
Bell.  1.  2.  Docent  etiam  nihil  prodesse  defunctis  orationes.  More,  *200.  Us  ne 
re<joivent  point  la  confirmation  ni  1'  Extreme  oiiction.  SIMON,  c.  1.  Esse  necessa- 
rio  sub  utraque  specie,  panis  scilicet  et  vini,  communicandum.  More,  199. 

Les  Grecs  n  'admittent  point  de  purgatoire.     Us  ne  reconnoisent  point  le  Papa 
pour   chef  de  1'    eglise.     Us  communient  sous  les  deux  especes.     Us  rejettent  * 
purgatoire.     Le  Bruyn,  1.  338,  339,  c.  13. 

2  Toutes  ces  Eglises  Chrestiennes,  excepte  la  Greque,  on  paru  extremement  dis- 
posees  a  reconnoitre  la  primaute  du  Saint  Siege.  Thorn.  I.  5. 

Graeci,  in  malitia  sua,  perseverant,  qui  ubique,  aut  latenter  aut  aperte,  ecclesiae 
Romanae  contradicunt.  Omnia  sacramenta  nostra  blasphemant.  M.  Paris,  426. 

Vocabant  eos  canes.  Cossart,  3.  21.  Graeci  coeperunt  abominari  Latinos. 
Labb.  13.  938.  Altaria  sua,  supra  quae  Latini  celebraverunt  divina,  abluere  con 
Bueverunt.  Canis.  4.  433.  Les  Grecs  ont  une  grande  aversion  pour  1'  eglise  Ro 
maine.  Us  oih  la  messe  des  Romains  en  grande  aversion.  Le  Bruyn,  1.  327.  c.  13. 


60  INTRODUCTION. 

to  disbelieve  transubstantiation.  Sir  John  Chardin,  while  on 
his  travels  in  Mingrelia,  asked  a  priest,  if  the  sacramental 
bread  and  wine  became  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.  The 
priest,  on  the  occasion,  laughed,  as  if  the  question  had  been 
intended  in  raillery.  The  simple  Mingrelian,  in  the  exercise 
of  common  sense,  could  not  understand  how  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  man  could  be  compressed  into  a  loaf,  or  why 
he  should  descend  from  heaven  to  earth.1 

The  Nestorians  overspread  Asiatic  Turkey,  Arabia,  Persia, 
Tartary,  India,  and  China.  Their  number  and  extent  will 
appear  from  the  statements  of  Cosmas,  Vitricius,  Canisius, 
Polo,  Paris,  Godeau,  and  Thomassin.  Cosmas,  in  Montfau- 
con,  represented  the  Nestorian  churches,  in  the  sixth  century, 
as  infinite  or  unnumbered.  Vitricius  records  the  numerical 
superiority  of  the  Nestorians  and  Jacobites  over  the  Greeks 
and  Romans.  Canisius,  from  an  old  author,  gives  a  similar 
statement.  Polo,  the  Venetian,  who  remained  seventeen  years 
in  Tartary,  and  was  employed  by  the  Cham  on  many  impor- 
tant commissions,  testifies  the  dissemination  of  Nestorianism 
through  Tartary,  China,  and  the  empire  of  the  Mogols.  Mat- 
thew Paris  relates  the  spread  of  the  Nestorian  heresy  through 
India,  the  kingdom  of  Prester  John,  and  the  nations  lying 
nearer  the  East.  Godeau  mentions  the  extension  of  Nesto- 
rianism through  the  East,  and  its  penetration  into  the  extremity 
of  India,  where  it  remains  to  the  present  day.  Thomassin 
attests  its  diffusion  through  Indiav  Persia,  and  Tartary,  and  its 
multiplication  in  the  North  and  East,  nearly  to  infinity.2 

The  Jacobites  or  Monophysites  are  divided  into  the  Asiatics 
and  Africans.  The  Asiatics  are  diffused  through  Syria,  Meso- 
potamia, and  Armenia  ;  and  the  Africans  through  Egypt,  Nu- 
bia, and  Abyssinia.  The  vast  number  of  this  denomination, 
and  the  extensive  territory  which  they  have  occupied,  may 
be  shown  from  the  relations  of  Vitricius,  Paris,  Canisius,  and 
Thomassin. 

Vitricius  records  the  dissemination  of  the  Monophysite  con- 
tagion through  more  than  forty  kingdoms.  The  Patriarch  of 

1  Chardin,  1.  100. 

3  Ecclesiae  Infinitae  sunt.  Montfaucon,  2.  179.  Orientalem  regionem,  pro 
magna  parte,  infecit.  Canisius,  4.  433.  Qui  cum  Jacobiiiis,  plures  esse  dicuntur, 
quam  Latini  et  Grseci.  Vitricius  1.  76.  Les  Nestoriens  avoient  plusieurs  eglises 
dans  la  Tartarie,  dans  le  pais  des  Mogols,  et  dans  la  Chine.  Thorn.  1.  4.  Part  4. 
Nestoriana  hasresis  per  Indiam  Majorem.  et  regnum  sacerdotis  Johannis,  et  per 
refttia  magis  proxima  orienti  dilatatur.  M.  Paris,  425.  Us  se  repandit  dans  tout 
1'Orient,  et  penetra  jusqu'  aux  extremitez  des  Indes.  Godeau,  3.  354.  Ilss'enten- 
dirent  jusques  dans'les  Indes,  la  Perse,  et  la  Tartarie.  Thorn.  2.  20.  Part  [V.  Us 
s'y  mu'ltiplierent  presque  a  1'infmi  vers  1'orient  et  le  Nord.  Thorn.  1.  375.  Bayle, 
3.  20T9. 


INTRODUCTION.  61 

the  Jacobites,  says  Matthew  Paris,  superintends  the  Chaldeans, 
Medians,  Persians,  Armenians,  Indians,  ^Ethiopians,  Lybians, 
Nubians,  and  Egyptians.  These,  mingled  with  the  Saracens 
or  fixed  in  their  own  settlements  through  Asia,  Africa,  and  the 
East,  occupy  more  than  forty  kingdoms,  containing  an  innu- 
merable Christian  population.  Canisius,  from  the  manuscript 
of  an  anonymous  historian,  has  transmitted  a  similar  account. 
The  Jacobites,  according  to  Thomassin,  spread,  under  the 
empire  of  the  Saracens,  through  all  Asia  and  Africa.  The 
patriarch  of  Antioch  presides  over  the  Metropolitans  of  Jeru- 
salem, Mosul,  Damascus,  Edessa,  and  Cyprus.  The  patriarch 
of  Alexandria  and  Abyssinia  presides  over  Egypt,  ^Ethiopia, 
and  Nubia.1  Abyssinia  boasts  a  Christian  empire  and  estab- 
lishment. Jowett,  the  missionary,  found  in  Siout,  an  Egyptian 
city,  about  5000  Coptic  Christians.  ^ 

The  Jacobites  reject  the  supremacy,  purgatory,  tnmsubstan- 
tiation,  half-communion,  auricular  confession,  extreme  unction, 
the  Latin  Liturgy,  and  the  seven  sacraments.  The  usurped 
authority  of  the  Roman  Hierarch,  they  view  with  contempt. 
Their  communion  in  both  kinds,  as  well  as  their  rejection  of 
confirmation  and  extreme  unction,  are  testified  by  Dresser  and 
Godeau.  Canisius,  from  an  old  author,  in  his  Lections,  and 
Moreri  show  the  Jacoban  disbelief  of  purgatory.  The  Mono- 
physan  Missal,  cited  by  Geddes,  disclaims  transubstantiation. 
According  to  this  document,  *  the  bread  and  the  wine  are  dis- 
tinct from  our  Lord  in  nature,  but  the  same  in  power  and  effi- 
cacy. His  body  is  broken,  but  only  by  faith.'  An  Abyssinian 
or  Monophysan  priest  expressly  declared  against  transubstan- 
tiation to  Bruce.  *  The  Priest,'  says  this  author,  «  declared  to 
me  with  great  earnestness,  that  he  never  did  believe  that  the 
elements  in  the  Eucharist  were  converted  into  the  real  body 
and  blood  of  Christ.  He  said,  however,  that  he  believed  this 
to  be  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,  but  it  never  was  his,  and  that 
he  conceived  the  bread  was  bread  and  the  wine  was  wine  even 
after  consecration.'  Vitricius  attests  their  rejection  of  auricular 
confession.  Their  disuse  of  the  Latin  Liturgy  is  well  known  ; 
and  their  renunciation  of  confirmation,  confession,  and  extreme 
unction,  shows  their  opinion  of  the  seven  sacraments.2 

^ l  Patriarcha  Jacobitarum  praeest  Chaldaeis,  Medis,  Persia,  et  Armeniis.  Septua- 
ginta  provincioe  ei  obediunt,  in  quibus  habitant  innumerabiles  Christiani.  Huic 
subdita  est  Minor  India,  Aethiopia,  Lybia,  cum  Aegypto.  Occupaverunt  Nubiam 
et  omnes  regiones  usque  in  Indiam,  plusquam  quadraginta  regna.  Paris,  425, 426 

Jacobini  majonsm  partem  Asise  inhabitant.  Contenninata  Aegypto,  magnain 
partem  Aethopiae  et  plures  regiones  usque  in  Indiam  Citeriorein,  plura  regna  pos- 
sident.  Canisius,  4.  433  Cette  secte  s'entendit  dans  toute  1'Asie  et  1'Afrique. 
Thorn.  2.  20.  Vitricius,  1.  75.  Renaudot,  1.  375,  438,  440. 

8  Sacramentum  integrum,  tarn  clerici  quam  laici,  accipiunt.     Dress.  525. 


62  INTRODUCTION. 

The  Nestorians  were  said  to  divide  the  person  of  the  Son, 
and  the  Jacobites  to  confound  his  natures.  But  this  contro- 
versy, as  the  ablest  and  most  candid  theologians  and  historians 
admit,  was  a  dispute  about  words.  This  is  the  opinion  of  the 
Protestant  historians,  Mosheim,  Bayle,  Basnage,  La  Croze, 
Jalonsky,  and  Buchanan.  Many  Romish  as  well  as  Reformed 
critics  entertained  the  same  opinion.  This  wa.s  the  judgment 
of  Simon,  Bruys,  Assemanni,  Tournefort,  Gelasius,  Thomassin, 
and  Godeau.  Nestorianism,  says  Simon,  is  only  a  nominal 
heresy,  and  the  controversy  originated  in  a  mutual  misunder- 
standing. Bruys,  Assemanni,  Tournefort,  and  Gelasius  speak 
to  the  same  purpose.  Thomassin  calls  the  Jacobites,  Arme- 
nians, Copts,  and  Abyssinians,  Demi-Eutychians,  who  rejected 
the  extravagant  imaginations  of  the  original  Monophysites. 
Modern  relations,  says  this  author,  show  that  the  Jacobites 
confounded  not  the  godhead  and  manhood  of  the  Messiah,  but 
represented  these  as  forming  one  person,  without  confusion,  in 
the  Son,  as  soul  and  body  in  man.  The  Abyssinians,  who  are 
a  branch  of  the  Monophysites,  disbelieve,  says  Godeau,  any 
commixture  of  Deity  and  humanity  in  the  Son  of  God.1 

The  Armenians  are  scattered  through  Armenia,  Cappadocia, 
Cilicia,  Syria,  Persia,  India,  Cyprus,  Poland,  Turkey,  Tran- 
sylvania, Hungary,  and  Russia.  Julfa,  in  the  suburbs  of  Ispa- 
han, is,  say  Renaudot  and  Chardin,  entirely  inhabited  by  this 
denomination.  This  colony  amounted  to  30,000  persons. 
Abbas,  the  Persian  monarch,  contemporary  with  Elizabeth  of 
England,  invited,  says  Walsh,  the  Armenians  to  settle  in  his 
dominions,  where  he  gave  them  every  protection.  Twenty 
thousand  families  were  placed  in  the  province  of  Guilam. 
Forty  thousand  reside  in  India,  and  carry  on  a  great  part  of 
the  inland  trade.  Two  hundred  thousand  of  them  remain  in 
Constantinople,  in  the  adjoining  villages,  and  on  the  Bosphorus.2 

The  Armenian  merchants  are  distinguished  for  their  industry, 
frugality,  activity,  and  opulence.  Fixing  their  settlements  in 
every  principal  city  and  emporium  of  Asia,  the  Arminians,  says 

Us  communient  sous  les  deux  especes.  Us  ne  pratiquent  ni  la  confirmation,  ni 
F  extreme  unction.  Godeau,  1.  275. 

De  Purgatorio  nil  credunt.  Canis.  4.  434.  Les  Jacobites  ne  croyent  pas  le  pur- 
gatoire.  Moreri,  8.  429. 

0  Christe,  sicut  in  pane  et  vino  naturae  sunt  a  te  distinctae,  in  virtute  et  potentia 
idem  sunt  tecum.     Corpus  frangimus,  sed  tantum  per  fidem.     Gedd.  169. 

Confessiones  peccatorum  suorum,  non  sacerdotibus,  sed  soli  Deo  latenter  faciunt. 
Vitricius,  1.  76.  Bruce  V.  12. 

1  Bayle,  2077.     Simon,  c.  9.     Bruys,  1.  207.     Assem.  291.     Tourn.  2.  297.  GeL 
de  duob.     Thorn.  2.  21.     Godeau,  I.  275. 

2  Abbas  Magnus  Armenorum  Julfae  prope  Ispahanam,  coloniam  constituit,  etc. 
Renaud.  2.  376.     Chard.  2.  97. 


INTRODUCTION.  63 

Buchanan,  are  the  general  merchants  of  the  East,  and  in  con- 
stant motion  between  Canton  and  Constantinople.  Calcutta, 
Madras,  and  Bombay  have  each  an  Armenian  church.  Tour- 
nefort  extols  their  civility,  politeness,  probity,  sense,  wealth, 
industry,  and  enterprising  disposition.  Godeau  reckons  the 
Armenian  families,  under  one  of  the  Armenian  patriarchs,  at 
more  than  1500.  The  Armenian  patriarch  of  Antioch,  says 
Otho,  superintends  more  than  a  thousand  bishops,  and  is,  in 
consequence,  called  Universal.  He  governs,  says  Vitricius, 
twenty  provinces  and  fourteen  metropolitans,  with  their  suffra- 
gans, who  occupy,  according  to  Thomassin,  many  churches 
through  all  the  East,  in  Mesopotamia,  Persia,  Caramania,  and 
Armenia.1 

This  denomination,  beyond  all  the  Christians  in  Central  Asia, 
ha,ve  repelled  Mahometan  and  Romish  superstitions.  True  to 
their  ancient  faith,  they  have  nobly  resisted  the  oppression  of 
Islamism,  and  the  allurements  of  popery.  Preserving  the  Bible, 
their  faith,  says  Buchanan,  is  a  transcript  of  biblical  purity. 
The  Armenians  condemn  the  Supremacy,  Transubstantiation, 
Purgatory,  Image-worship,  Clerical  Celibacy,  the  Seven  Sacra- 
ments, the  Latin  Liturgy,  the  power  of  the  Sacraments  to  confer 
grace,  the  observance  of  Vigils  and  Festivals,  and  the  with- 
holding of  the  Bible  from  the  laity.  Their  re-baptism  of  papists 
who  join  their  communion,  as  mentioned  by  Godeau  and  More, 
is  a  sufficient  evidence  of  the  opinion  which  they  entertain  of 
the  Supremacy  and  of  Romanism.  The  uncatholicism  and 
falsehood  of  popery  besides,  is,  says  More,  one  of  their  pro- 
fessed dogmas.  Their  disbelief  of  the  real  presence  in  the 
Communion,  except  in  sign  and  similitude,  is  acknowledged  by 
Godeau,  Guido,  and  More.  Their  denial  of  purgatoiy  and 
prayers  for  the  dead  is  admitted  by  Godeau,  More,  and  Cani- 
sius  ;  while  Nicetas,  Baronius,  and  Spondanus  proclaim  the 
Armenian  renunciation  of  image-worship.  The  Armenians, 
according  to  Godeau,  ordain  only  married  men  to  the  priest- 
hood, and  detract  from  the  Sacraments  the  power  of  con- 
ferring grace.  The ve not  attests  their  rejection  of  purgatory 
and  the  pope,  as  well  as  their  great  enmity  to  all  the  professors 
of  Romanism.2 

1  Les  families,  qui  sont  sons  sa  jurisdiction  excedent  le  nombre  de  quinze  cens 
mille.  Godeau,  1.  273.  Le  patriarche  des  Armeniens  etoit  appelle  Catholique 
ou  Universel,  parceqa'il  avoit  plus  de  mille  ev£ques  sous  sa  juridiction.  Thomas- 
Bin,  1.  4.  Labbeus,  12.  1572.  Habet  sub  se  viginti  provinces  Antiochenus 
Patriarcha,  quarum  quatuovdecim  Metropolitanos  habebant,  cum  sibi  suftragnneis 
Episcopis.  Vitricius,  c.  23.  Us  occupent  presentement  plusieurs  egliscs  dans 
tout  1'  orient,  dans  la  Mesopotamie,  la  Perse,  la  Caramanie,  et  dans  les  deux 
Annenies.  Thorn.  I.  4.  part  4.  Spun.  1145  IV. 

8  Us  rebaptizent  les  Catholiques  Remains  qui   viennent  a  leur  communion. 


64  INTRODUCTION. 

The  Syrian  Christians  who  agree  in  faith  with  the  Reformed, 
inhabit  India,  where  Travancore  and  Malabar  constitute  theii 
chief  settlements.  These  had  occupied  Western  India  frorc 
the  earliest  ages,  and  had  never  heard  of  Romanism  or  the 
Papacy  till  Vasco  De  Gama  arrived  at  Cochin  in  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  infernal  spirit  of  Popery  and 
persecution  then  invaded  this  ancient  church,  and  disturbed 
the  tranquillity  of  1200  years.1  The  Syrians  on  the  sea-coast 
yielded,  for  a  time,  to  the  storm.  But  the  inland  inhabitants, 
in  support  of  their  ancient  religion,  braved  all  the  terrors  of  the 
inquisition  with  unshaken  resolution. 

The  Syrians  constitute  a  numerous  church.  Godeau  reckons 
the  Syrian  population  of  Comorin,  Coutan,  Cranganor,  Malabar, 
and  Negapatam  at  16,000  families,  or  70,000  individuals.2  But 
the  multitude  is  greater  towards  the  west,  the  north,  and  the 
city  of  Cochin. 

The  antiquity  of  the  Syrian  church  reaches  beyond  that  of 
Nestorianism,  Jacobitism,  or  Armenianism,  and  this  appears 
in  the  purity  and  simplicity  of  their  theology.  Godeau  admits 
their  reading  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  Syrian  tongue  in 
their  churches  ;  and  their  rejection  of  extreme  unction,  image- 
worship,  and  clerical  celibacy.  The  Syrians,  says  Moreri  as 
well  as  Thomas,  quoted  by  Renaudot,  neither  believe  purga- 
torial fire  nor  pray  for  the  dead.  These  Indian  Christians,  says 
Renaudot,  celebrate  the  communion  in  Syriac,  and  reckon,  says 
Canisius,  all  the  Latins  excommunicated.5 

But  the  Synod  of  Diamper,  in  which  Menez,  Archbishop  of 

Godeau,  1.  273.  Rebaptizant  eos,  qui  jam  simul  baptisma  suscepenrotinecclesi» 
Romana.  More,  62.  Apud  Latinos,  non  esse  veram  et  catholicam  ecclesiam 
affirmans.  More,  62.  Ils  nient  la  presence  reelle  du  corps  de  Jesus  Christ  en 
I'eucharistie.  Godeau,  1.  272.  Non  credunt  quod  sit  sub  spec  iebus  panis  et  vini 
vere  et  realiter  verum  corpus  et  sanguis  Christi,  sed  tantum  in  similitudine  etsigno 
Guido,  c.  22.  Negant  illi  verum  Christi  corpus  realiter  in  Sacramento  Eucharistin? 
sub  panis,  et  sanguinem  sub  vini  speciebus  contineri.  More,  62  Ils  rejettent  le 
purgatoire,  et  la  priere  des  morts.  Godeau,  1.  273.  Nullum  esse  purgatorium 
locum.  More,  63.  De  purgatorio  nil  credunt.  Canisius,  4.  434.  Sacras  imagines 
non  adorabant.  Spond.  863.  V.  Ils  n'admittent  au  sacerdoce  que  les  hommes 
mariez.  Godeau,  1.  273.  Ils  otent  aux  sacremens  la  vertu  de  conferer  la  grace. 
Godeau,  1.  273.  Ab  omnibus  sacramentis,  virtutem  conferendi  gratiam  tollunt. 
More,  62.  Negant  in  nuptiis  contrahendis  aliquod  esse  sacramentum.  More,  63. 
Armeni  in  vulgari  sermone  Divinas  Scripturas  pronunciant.  Vigilias  et  festa  sanc- 
torum non  sanctificant.  Canisius,  4.  434. 

Les  Armeniens  n'admittent  point  de  purgatoire.  Ils  ne  reconnoissent  point  le 
Pape.  Ils  sont  universellement  grands  ennemis  de  tous  ceux  qui  professent  la  foi 
Catholique  Romaine.  Thevenot,  3.  396. 

i  Coss.  6.  83. 

3  On  faisoit  monter  a  quinze  ou  seixe  mille  families,  ou  a  soixante  et  dix  mitie 
personnes.  II  y  en  avoit  une  plus  gra^de  multitude,  &c.  Godeau,  1.  270. 

3  Ils  n'avoit  en  usage  le  sacrement  de  1'Extreme-Onction,  ni  des  images  des 
saints.  Leurs  prfetres  pouvoient  se  marier  une  fois.  Le  Nouveau  Testament  »e 


INTRODUCTION  66 

Uoa,  presided,  affords  unexceptionable  evidence  of  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  Syrian  church  to  Popery,  and  of  its  agreement, 
in  every  essential,  with  Protestantism.  The  acts  of  this  synod 
are  inserted  in  Cossart's  collection,  and  supply  the  following 
statements.  '  The  Babylonian  patriarch  is  independent  of  the 
Roman  pontiff,  and  the  Syrian  church  of  the  Papal  communion. 
The  Son  of  God  conferred  no  authority  on  Peter  above  his 
apostolic  fellows.  The  Romish  communion  has  renounced  the 
faith  and  fallen  into  heresy.  The  Popish  theology  is  a  system 
of  falsehood,  which  was  propagated  through  Christendom,  by 
the  arms  and  enactments  of  the  Roman  emperors. 

4  Transubstantiation  is  an  absurdity.  The  body  of  Jesus  is 
not  in  the  host,  and  is  only  in  heaven.  The  bread  and  wine 
are  the  emblems  of  his  body  and  blood,  from  which  they  differ 
as  a  picture  from  the  original.  The  Sacramental  elements  are 
the  Lord,  not  in  reality  but  in  appearance,  not  in  substance 
but  in  efficacy.  When  Menez  elevated  the  host,  the  Syrians 
shut  their  eyes  lest  they  should  see  the  object  of  idolatry. 

'  Images  are  not  to  be  venerated.  These  hateful  and  filthy 
idols  are  to  be  excluded  from  the  churches  and  houses  of  the 
faithful.'  When  Menez  exhibited  an  image  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
the  people  cried,  '  away  with  this  abomination.  We  are 
Christians,  and  do  not  worship  idols.' 

1  Matrimony,  confirmation,  and  extreme  unction  are  no  sacra- 
ments. The  Syrians  had  no  knowledge  of  confirmation ;  and 
regarded  it,  when  proposed  by  the  Metropolitan  of  Goa,  not 
only  as  superfluous  and  unnecessary,  but  as  an  insult.  The 
Syrian  clergy  administered  no  extreme  unction,  and  were  igno- 
rant of  its  supposed  institution,  use,  and  efficacy.  The  Syrian 
laity  practised  no  auricular  confession.  The  Syro-Indian 
church  used  no  holy  oil,  either  in  baptism  or  in  any  other  cere- 
mony. Menez,  the  Popish  metropolitan,  ordered  baptism  to  be 
administered  according  to  the  Roman  ritual ;  a  certain  token 
that  the  chrism,  exorcism,  spittle,  and  other  ridiculous  super- 
stitions of  Romanism  in  the  administration  of  this  sacrament 
had  been  unknown  in  this  ancient  communion.  Sacerdotal 
celibacy  was  no  institution  of  Syrian  discipline.  The  clergy 
married,  and  sometimes  even  widows.'  Such  is  the  Synod  of 


lisoit  dans  leur  eglises  en  langue  Syriaque.  Godea.  1.  270.  Les  Chrestieiis  de  S 
Thomas  n'avoient  point  entendu  parler  du  Furgatoire,  ni  du  sacrifice  oft'ert  pour 
en  retirer  les  ames,  avant  le  Synode  de  Diamper,  en  1599.  Moreri,  7.  397.  Illoa 
I'urgatorium  ignem  noti  agnoscere.  Neque  illos  orare  pro  mortuis.  Thomas. 
VII.  15.  Renaudot,  2.  105.  Syri  Syriace  sacra  celebrant.  Renaud.  1.  374. 
Syriani  omnes  Latinos  excommunicates  reputant.  Canisius,  4.  433. 

5 


66  INTRODUCTION. 

Diamper's  representation  of  the  distinctions  which  discriminated 
Syrianism  from  Popery.1 

Buchanan  and  Kerr  visited  this  Christian  community,  and 
have  transmitted  accounts  of  its  people  and  profession.  Their 
knowledge  of  the  Syrian  clergy  and  laity  was  obtained  by  per- 
sonal acquaintance,  and  their  delineations  possess  all  the  merit 
of  pictures  taken  from  life.  Buchanan  held  long  conversations 
with  the  Syrian  clergy,  and  found,  after  mature  examination, 
the  conformity  of  their  faith  with  the  reformed.  He  acknow- 
ledged the  antiquity  of  Syrianism,  and  its  identity,  in  all  its 
tenets,  with  Protestantism.  India,  from  time  immemorial,  con- 
tained a  church  which  was  unknown  to  the  rest  of  Christendom, 
but  which  held  the  same  theology  that  had  been  professed  in 
the  European  nations  by  the  Waldensians,  and  which,  in  the 
sixteenth  century,  was  promulgated  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  and 
is  received,  at  the  present  day,  by  a  great  part  of  the  Old  and 
New  World. 

The  European,  Asiatic,  and  African  denominations  that  dis- 
sented from  Popery  were  four  times  more  numerous  than  the 
partisans  of  Romanism,  when,  prior  to  the  Reformation,  the 
Papacy  shone  in  all  its  glory.  Popery,  instead  of  universality, 
which  it  its  vain  but  empty  boast,  was  never  embraced  by  more 
than  a  fifth  part  of  Christendom.  The  West  and  especially  the 
East  were  crowded  by  the  opponents  of  the  Romish  despotism 
and  absurdity.  Superstition  and  error,  indeed,  except  among 
the  Waldenses,  prevailed  through  the  European  nations,  and 
reigned  in  the  realms  of  Papacy  with  uncontrolled  sway. 

1  Unam  esse  legem  Sancti  Thomae,  aliam  vero  Divi  Petri,  quse  tamen  constitue- 
bant  duas  ecclesias  distinctas,  et  alteram  ab  altera  independentem,  nee  pastorem 
unius  debere  pastori  altering  obedire.  Patriarcham  Babylonicum  subjection  non 
esse  Romano  Pontifici.  Potestatem  a  Christo  Petro  relictam  in  ecclesiam  nihil 
omnino  diflerre  ab  ea  quam  sacerdotibus  aliis  contulit :  quamobrem  Petri  succes- 
Bores  non  excedere  in  jurisdictione  episcopos  alios.  Ecclesiam  Romanam  a  fide 
excidisse ;  Romanorum  hrereticam  falsam,  3t  armorum  vi,  necnon  Decretis  Impera- 
torum,  quoad  m;ijorem  Orbis  pai'tem  introductam.  Cossart,  6,  29,  36,  37,  39,  40. 

Sacram  Eueharistiam  esse  tantum  in^aginem  Christi,  etab  eo  distingui  nonsecus 
ac  imago  ab  homine  vero ;  nee  in  ilia  esse  Christi  corpus,  quod  solum  in  ccelo  ex- 
istit.  In  Eucharistia  tantummodo  Christi  virtutem,  non  autem  verum  corpus  et 
sanguinem  contineri.  Cossart,  6.  39,  40. 

Imagines  venerandas  non  esse,  utpote  idola  turpia,  et  immunda.  Imagines  ulte- 
rius  idola  esse  impie  docetur,  nee  venerandas  in  ecclesiis.  Cossart,  6.  40,  47. 

Matrimonium  rion  esse  sacramentum,  sed  nee  esse  posse.  Hactenus  confirma- 
tionis  usu  notitiaque  populus  Christianus  hujus  Dioeceseos  caruerit.  Rem  super- 
fluam,  nee  necessariam,  hactenus  ignotam,  et  non  visam  dicerent.  Hactenus  in 
hoc  episcopatu  uullus  fuerit  usus  sacramento  Extremes  Unctionis.  Nulla.  de  so, 
ejusque  effectu,  et  efficacia,  nee  de  ipsius  institutione,  notitia  habita  fuit.  Pra>cep» 
turn  hujusmodi  (confessionis)  non  fuit  adhuc  ita  in  usu,  in  hoc  episcopatu.  Sacri 
Olei  usus  in  sacramentis  hue  usque  in  hac  episcopali  sede,  aut  nullus  fuit,  ant 
Ecclesia?  Catholicue  ritibus  rninime  consentaneus.  Preshyteri  matrimonia  con- 
trahebant.  Neque  ulla  habebatur  ratio,  an  virgo  esset,  an  vidua,  an  prima  uxor 
esiset,  an  secunda,  an  etiam  tertia.  Cossart,  6.  36,  65,  72,  73.  83,  101,  112,  127. 


INTRODUCTION.  67 

Darkness,  within  its  dominions,  covered  the  earth  and  gross 
darkness  the  people.  But  the  Waldenses,  who  were  nume- 
rous, held  up,  in  the  Western  world,  a  steady  light  which  shone 
through  the  surrounding  obscurity,  and  illuminated,  with  its 
warming  beams,  the  minds  of  many.  The  oriental  Christians, 
more  numerous  than  the  Waldenses  and  divided  and  disputing 
about  minor  matters  of  words  and  ceremony,  opposed,  with 
firmness  and  unanimity,  the  tyranny  and  corruptions  of  Ro- 
manism. All  these,  overspreading  the  Eastern  and  Western 
world  and  resisting  the  usurpations  of  pontifical  despotism,  far 
outnumbered  the  sons  of  European  superstition  and  Popery. 


THE  VARIATIONS  OF  POPERY. 


CHAPTER  H. 

POPKS. 

THE       DIFFICULTY       OF      THE      PONTIFICAL      SUCCESSION HISTORICAL      VARIATIONS- 
ELECTORAL       VARIATIONS SCHISMS     IN       THE      PAPACY — LIBERIUS       AND      FELIX— 

SILVERIUS  AND  VIGILIUS FORMOSUS,  SERGIUS,  AND  STEPHEN BENEDICT,  SIL- 
VESTER, JOHN  AND  GREGORY — GREAT  WESTERN  SCHISM — BAStLlAN  AND  FLOREN- 
TINE SCHISM DOCTRINAL  VARIATIONS VICTOR STEPHEN LIBERIUS,  ZOZIMUS, 

AND  HONORIU8 VIGILIUS JOHN MORAL  VARIATIONS STATE  OF  THE  PAPACY- 
THEODORA  AND  MAROZIA JOHN BONIFACE — GREGORY BONIFACE JOHN SIXTUS 

ALEXANDER JULIUS LEO PERJURED  PONTIFFS. 

THE  pontifical  succession  is  attended  with  more  difficulty  than 
the  quadrature  of  the  circle  or  the  longitude  at  sea.  The  one 
presents  greater  perplexity  to  the  annalist  and  the  divine,  than 
the  others  to  the  geometrician  and  the  navigator.  The  quadra- 
ture and  the  longitude,  in  the  advanced  state  of  mathematics, 
admit  an  approximation.  But  the  papal  succession  mocks 
investigation,  eludes  research,  and  bids  proud  defiance  to  all 
inquiry. 

The  difficulty  on  this  topic  arises  from  the  variations  of  the 
historians  and  electors,  and  from  the  faith  and  morality  of  the 
Roman  pontiffs.  Historians,  for  a  century,  differed  in  their 
records  of  the  papacy ;  and  the  electors,  in  thirty  instances, 
disagreed  in  their  choice  of  an  ecclesiastical  sovereign.  Many 
of  the  Popes  embraced  heresy  and  perpetrated  immorality  ;  and 
these  considerations  render  the  problem  of  their  legitimate 
succession  an  historical  and  moral  impossibility. 

History  has  preserved  a  profound  silence  on  the  subject  of 
the  first  Roman  Bishop.  This  honour,  indeed,  if  such  it  be, 
has  by  Romish  partisans  been  conferred  on  the  apostle  Peter. 
But  the  patrons  of  this  opinion  cannot,  from  any  good  authority, 
show  that  the  apostle  was  ever  in  the  Roman  capital,  and  still 
less  that  he  was  ever  a  Roman  hierarch.  The  evidence  of  his 
visit  to  that  city  is  not  historical  but  traditional.  History,  for 
a  century  after  the  alleged  event,  presents  on  this  topic  an  uni- 
versal blank,  which  is  supplied  from  the  very  suspicious  testi- 
mony of  tradition. 


POPES.  69 

A  single  hint  on  this  subject  is  not  afforded  by  Peter  him  self, 
nor  by  his  inspired  companions,  Luke,  James,  Jude,  Pau.,  and 
John.  Pope  Peter  in  his  epistolary  productions,  mentions 
nothing  of  his  Roman  residency,  episcopacy,  or  supremacy. 
Paul  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Romans ;  and,  from  the  Roman  city 
addressed  the  Galatians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians, 
Timothy,  and  Philemon.  He  sends  salutations  to  various  Ro- 
man friends,  such  as  Priscilla,  Aquila,  Epenetus,  Mary,  Andro- 
nicus,  Julia,  and  Amplias :  but  forgets  Simon  the  supposed 
Roman  hierarch.  Writing  from  Rome  to  the  Colossians,  he 
mentions  Tychicus,  Onesimus,  Aristarchus,  Marcus,  Justus, 
Epaphras,  Luke,  and  Demas,  who  had  afforded  him  consolation ; 
but,  strange  to  tell,  neglects  the  sovereign  pontiff.  Addressing 
Timothy  from  the  Roman  city,  Paul  of  Tarsus  remembers 
Eubulus,  Pudens,  Linus,  and  Claudia;  but  overlooks  the  Ro- 
man bishop.  No  man,  except  Luke,  stood  with  Paul  at  his 
first  answer  or  at  the  nearer  approach  of  dissolution.1  His  apos- 
tolic holiness  could  not  then  have  been  in  his  own  diocese,  and 
should  have  been  prosecuted  for  non-residence.  His  Infallibility, 
perhaps,  like  some  of  his  successors,  had  made  an  excursion, 
for  amusement,  to  Avignon.  Luke  also  is  silent  on  this  theme. 
John,  who  published  his  gospel  after  the  other  Evangelists,  and 
his  Revelation  at  the  close  of  the  first  century,  maintains,  on 
this  agitated  subject,  a  profound  and  provoking  silence. 

The  omission  is  continued  by  the  Apostolic  men,  Clemens, 
Barnabas,  Hermas,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp.  Not  one  of  all  these 
deigns  to  mention  a  matter  of  such  stupendous  importance  to 
Christendom.  Clemens,  in  particular,  might  have  been  ex- 
pected to  record  such  an  event.  He  was  a  Roman  bishop,  an<J 
interested  in  a  peculiar  manner,  in  the  dignity  of  the  Roman 
See.  An  apostolic  predecessor,  besides,  would  have  reflected 
honour  on  his  successor  in  the  hierarchy.  He  mentions  his 
pretended  predecessor  indeed ;  but  omits  any  allusion  to  his 
journey  to  Rome,  or  his  occupation  of  the  pontifical  throne. 

The  fiction  of  Peter's  visit  to  the  metropolis  of  the  world 
began  to  obtain  credit  about  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
Ireneeus,  trusting  to  the  prattlement  of  Papias  or  to  common 
report,  recorded  the  tradition  ;  and  was  afterwards  followed  by 
Tertullian,  Hippolytus,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Epiphanius,  Athan- 
asius,  Ephraim,  Lactantius,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Arnobius, 
Prudentius,  Theodoret,  Orosius,  Prosper,  Cyril,  Eusebius, 
Optatus,  Sozomen,  and  Augustine.2  The  tradition,  however, 
seemed  doubtful  to  Eusebius.  He  introduces  it  as  something 
reported,  but  not  certain.  The  relation,  to  the  father  of  eccle- 

1  Rom.  XVI.     Coloss.  IV.     2  Tim.  IV. 

8  Iren.  III.  3.  Maimb.  22.     Bruy.  1. 10.     Spon.  44.  X.  Bell.  II.  3.    Euseb.  II.  0* 


70  THE    VARIATIONS      F    POPERY 

siastical  history,  was  a  mere  hearsay.  Bede,  on  this  subject, 
uses  a  similar  expression,  which  corroborates  this  interpretation 
of  the  Greek  historian.  Peter,  according  to  the  British  annal- 
ist, having  founded  the  Roman  church,  is  SAID  to  have  conse- 
crated his  successor.1 

The  evidence  of  the  tale  may  be  reduced  to  small  compass. 
Irenaeus  is  the  first  author  of  any  credibility  who  mentions  die 
report.  The  Apostle,  according  to  Baronius,  Binius,  and  Labbe", 
came  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  in  the  year  45  ;  and 
Irenaeus,  at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  relates  the  sup- 
posed transaction.2  A  hundred  and  fifty  years,  therefore, 
elapsed,  from  the  occurrence  of  the  alleged  event  till  the  time 
of  its  record.  The  cotemporary  and  succeeding  authors  for  a 
century  and  a  half,  such  as  Luke,  Paul,  John,  Clemens,  Bar- 
nabas, Hermas,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp,  who  detail  Peter's 
biography,  and  who  were  interested  in  the  supposed  fact,  say 
nothing  of  the  tradition.  The  intervening  historians  between 
Peter  and  Irenaeus  are  on  this  topic  silent  as  the  grave.  The 
belief  of  such  a  story  requires  Popish  prejudice  and  infatu- 
ation. 

Simon,  however,  even  if  he  were  at  the  Roman  city,  could 
not  have  been  the  Roman  bishop.  The  Episcopacy,  in  its 
proper  sense,  is,  as  Chrysostom,  Giannon,  and  Du  Pin  have 
observed,  incompatible  with  the  Apostleship.  A  bishop's 
authority,  say  Chrysostom  and  Giannon,  *  is  limited  to  a  city 
or  nation  ;  but  an  apostle's  commission  extends  to  the  whole 
world.'3  The  Apostles,  says  the  Parisian  Sorbonnist,  '  peram- 
bulated the  principal  parts  of  the  earth,  and  were  confined  to 
no  place  or  city.4  This  constituted  one  distinction  between  the 
Apostolic  and  Episcopal  functions.  The  Apostles  founded 
and  organized  churches,  and  then  consigned  their  superin- 
tendency  to  fixed  and  ordinary  pastors.  The  one  formed  an 
army  of  conquest  for  the  formation  of  ecclesiastical  kingdoms, 
and  the  other  an  army  of  possession  for  the  purpose  of  occu- 
pation and  government. 

This  statement  corresponds  with  the  details  of  Irenaeus, 
Ruffinus,  Eusebius,  and  the  author  of  the  Apostolic  consti- 
tutions, who  lived  near  the  scene  of  action  and  the  fountain  of 
tradition.  These  represent  Linus  as  the  first  Roman  bishop, 
who,  succeeded  by  Anacletus  and  Clemens,  exercised  the 
Roman  prelacy  ;  while  Peter  and  Paul  executed  the  Christian 
apostleship.  Peter  and  Paul,  says  Irenoeus,  having  founded 

1  Fundata  Romae  ecclesia,  successorem  consecrasse  perhibetur.     Beda,  V.  4. 

•  Bin.  1.  24.     Labb.  1.  64.         *  Uavfa.  ft^ov  ovtot,.     Chrysostom,  It.  83. 

4  Apostoli  praecipuas  orbis  partes  peragrarunt,  nulli  aut  urbi  aut  loco  addicti. 
Du  Pin,  15.  Qui  les  obligeoit  d'aller  par  toute  la  terre  annoncer  une  nouvelle  loL 
An.  Eccl.  22.  Giannon,  I.  2. 


71 

the  Roman  church,  committed  its  episcopacy  to  Linus,  who 
was  succeeded  by  Anacletus  and  Clemens.1  Linus,  Cletus, 
and  Clemens,  says  Ruffinus,  in  the  Clementin  Recognitions 
edited  by  Cotelerius,  '  were  Roman  bishops  during  Peter's  life, 
that  he  might  fulfil  his  apostolic  commission.'2  According  to 
Eusebius,  *  Linus  was  the  first  Roman  bishop,  who  was  fol- 
lowed in  succession  by  Anacletus  and  Clemens.'3  The  apos- 
tolic constitutions  refer  '  the  ordination  of  Linus,  the  first  Roman 
oishop,  to  Paul,  and  the  ordination  of  Clemens,  the  second  in 
succession  after  the  death  of  Linus,  to  Peter.'4  Linus,  there- 
fore, to  the  exclusion  of  Peter,  was  the  first  Roman  bishop  ; 
and  Clemens,  Cletus,  or  Anacletus  succeeded  during  the  apos- 
tolic age  as  the  ordinary  overseers  of  the  church ;  while  Paul 
and  Peter  accomplished  their  extraordinary  mission. 

The  episcopacy  of  Linus,  Anacletus,  and  Clemens  was 
incompatible  with  that  of  Simon  in  the  same  city.  Had  he 
been  bishop,  the  consecration  of  another  during  his  life  would 
have  been  a  violation  of  the  ecclesiastical  canons  of  antiquity. 
The  ancients,  to  a  man,  deprecated  the  idea  of  two  prelatic 
superintendents  in  one  city.  Gibert  has  collected  seven  canons 
of  this  kind,  issued  by  Clemens,  Hilary,  and  Pascal,  and  by 
the  councils  of  Nicea,  Chalons,  and  the  Lateran.  The  Lateran 
Fathers,  in  their  fourth  canon,  compared  a  city  with  two 
bishops  to  a  monster  with  two  heads.  The  Nicene  and  Lateran 
synods  were '  general,  and  therefore,  according  to  both  the 
Italian  and  French  schools,  were  vested  with  infallibility.  No 
instance  indeed  can,  in  all  antiquity,  be  produced,  of  two 
bishops  ruling  in  conjunction  in  the  same  city.5 

The  reasoning  of  the  Romish  advocates  on  this  question  is 
remarkable  only  for  its  silliness.  Bellarmine's  arguments  on 
this  topic  are  like  to  those  of  a  person,  who,  in  the  manner  of 
Swift,  wished,  in  solemn  irony,  to  ridicule  the  whole  story. 
He  is  so  weak,  one  can  hardly  think  him  serious.  A  suppo- 
sition which,  if  true,  should  be  supported  by  evidence  the  most 
indisputable,  is  as  destitute  of  historical  testimony  as  the  visions 
of  fancy,  the  tales  of  romance,  or  the  fictions  of  fairy-land. 

A  specimen  of  Bellarmine's  reasoning  may  amuse  the  reader. 
Babylon,  from  which  Peter  wrote,  was,  BeUarmine  as  well  as 

1  Apostoli  Lino  episcopatum  administrandse  ecclesise  tradiderunt.    Iren.  III.  3. 

8  Linus  et  Cletus  fuenrat  quidem  ante  Clementem  Episcopi  in  urbe  Rorna,  sed 
•uperstite  Petro,  ut  illi  episcopates  curam  gererent,  ipse  vero  apostolatus  impleret 
*fficium.  Cotel.  I.  492. 

3  AM/O$  8s  o  rtpwt'os  Jyv,  xai  ps*'  oyfcov,  Ai/fyxtyfoj.     Euseb.  III.  21.  et  v.  6. 

4  Romanorura  Ecclesiae  primus  quidem  Linus,  a  Paulo;  secundus  autem  a.  me 
Petro  post  mortem  Lini  ordinatus  iuit  Clemens.     Con.  Ap.  VII.  46.  Cotel.  1.  387. 
Labb.  1.  63.      , 

6  Ne  in  civitate  duo  sint  Episcopi.  Labb.  2.  38.  Duo,  in  una  civitate  uno  tern 
pore,  nee  ordinentur  nee  tolerantur  episcopi.  Labb.  7. 397,  et  13.  946.  Gibert  2. 


72  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

Maimbourg  gravely  affirms,  the  Roman  capital :  and  in  sup- 
port of  his  opinion  he  cites  Jerome  and  Bede,  who  seem,  on 
this  subject,  to  have  possessed  about  as  much  sense  as  Bellar- 
mine.  Paul  found  Christians  at  Rome  on  his  arrival  at  that 
city ;  and  the  learned  Jesuit  could  not,  for  his  life,  discover 
how  this  could  have  been  the  case  had  Peter  not  been  at  the 
capital  of  the  world.1  Peter's  victory  at  Rome  over  Simon  the 
magician,  the  Cardinal  alleges,  proves  his  point ;  and  indeed 
the  Apostle's  conflict  with  the  magician,  and  his  Roman  epis- 
copacy, are  attended  with  equal  probability.  Both  rest  on  the 
same  authority  of  tradition.  But  the  ridiculousness  of  the 
magician's  exploits,  who  rose  in  the  air  by  the  power  of  sorcery, 
and  fell  by  the  prayer  of  Peter,  and  broke  his  leg,  overthrows 
its  probability.  The  airy  and  ridiculous  fabrication  of  the 
necromancer's  achievements  falls,  like  their  fabled  author,  and 
buries  in  its  ruins,  the  silly  fiction  of  the  Apostle's  Roman 
episcopacy. 

But  the  whole  accounts  of  this  event  are  as  discordant  as 
they  are  silly.  The  partisans  of  this  opinion  differ  in  the  time 
of  the  Apostolic  pontiff's  arrival  and  stay  in  the  Roman  capital, 
Jerome,  Eusebius,  Binius,  Orosius,  Labbeus,  Spondanus, 
Onuphrius,  Nauclerus,  Petavius,  Bede,  Bruys,  Baronius.  and 
Valesius  send  Peter  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Claudius.  These, 
however,  disagree  in  the  year ;  the  second,  third,  fourth,  thir- 
teenth, and  fourteenth  years  of  the  Emperor's  reign  being  assigned 
by  different  authors  for  the  era  of  this  important  event.  Simon, 
says  Jerome,  having  preached  to  the  Jews  of  Pontus,  Gala.tia, 
Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,  proceeded  to  Rome  in  the 
second  year  of  Claudius,  and  held  the  sacerdotal  chair  twenty- 
five  years.  Lactantius,  Origen,  Balusius,  and  Pagius  fix  his 
arrival  at  the  Roman  metropolis  to  the  reign  of  Nero.  But  these 
too  differ  as  to  the  year.  The  length  of  Peter's  episcopacy  is 
also  disputed.  Twenty-three,  twenty-five,  twenty-seven,  and 
twenty-nine  years  have  been  reckoned  by  various  chronologers 
for  its  duration.2  This  discordance  of  opinion  is  the  natural 
consequence  of  deficiency  of  evidence.  Contemporary  histo- 
rians, indeed,  say  no  more  of  the  Apostle  Peter's  journey  to 
Rome  than  of  Baron  Munchausen's  excursion  to  the  moon. 

Many  fictions  of  the  same  kind  have  been  imposed  on  men, 
and  obtained  a  temporary  belief.  Geoffrey  of  Monmonth's 
story  of  the  Trojan  Brutus  is  well  known.  The  English  Ar- 
thur, and  the  French  Roland  were  accounted  real  heroes,  and 

1  Quis  hos  Christianos  fecerit,  si  Petrus  non  fuit  Romae  ?  Bell.  I.  £51.  Maimb. 
20.  Acts  28.  15.  Peter  5.  13.  Alex.  1.511. 

8  Jerome,  4,  107.  Euseb.  II.  15.  Petav.2,  130.  Beds,  17.  Bray.  1.7  Lactaa. 
c.  2.  Bin.  1.  24.  Labb.  1.  64.  Maimb.  16. 


POPES.  73 

presented  a  popular  theme  for  the  poet,  the  novelist,  and  the 
nistorian.  The  whole  story  of  the  Apostle's  Roman  episcopacy 
seems  to  have  originated  with  the  garrulous  Papias,  and  to 
have  been  founded  on  equal  authority  with  these  legends.  The 
Popedoms  of  Peter  and  Joan  display  wonderful  similarity 
Joan's  accession  remained  unmentioned  for  two  hundred  years 
after  her  death,  when  the  fiction,  says  Florimond,  was  attested 
by  Mariana.  The  reign  of  the  Popess  was  afterwards  related 
by  thirty  Romish  authors,  and  circulated  through  all  Christen- 
dom without  contradiction,  for  five  hundred  years,  till  the  era 
of  the  Reformation.  The  Popedoms  of  Peter  and  Joan,  in 
the  view  of  every  unprejudiced  mind,  possess  equal  credibility. 

The  earliest  ecclesiastical  historians,  differing,  in  this  man- 
ner, on  the  subject  of  the  first  Pope,  show  the  utmost  discord- 
ance on  the  topic  of  his  successors.  Irenoeus,  Eusebius,  Epi- 
phanius,  Jerome,  Theodoret,  Optatus,  Augustine,  and  the  apos- 
tolic constitutions  place  Linus  immediately  after  Peter.  Ter- 
tullian,  Jerome,  and  the  Latins,  in  general,  place  Clemens 
immediately  after  the  apostle.  Jerome,  however,  in  sheer 
inconsistency,  gives  this  honour,  in  his  catalogue  of  ecclesiastical 
authors,  to  Linus.  Cossart  could  not  determine  whether  Linus, 
Clemens  or  some  other  was  the  second  Roman  Pontiff.  He 
also  admits  the  uncertainty  of  the  Pontifical  succession. 
Clemens,  according  to  Tertullian,  was  ordained  by  Peter.1 
Linus,  according  to  the  apostolic  constitutions  was  ordained  by 
Paul.  Linus,  however,  at  the  present  day,  is,  by  Greeks  and 
Latins,  accounted  the  second  Roman  Pontiff'. 

The  succession  of  the  Roman  hierarchs,  exclusive  of  Peter, 
in  the  first  century,  according  to  Augustine,  Optatus,  Damasus, 
and  the  apostolic  constitutions,  was  Linus,  Clemens,  and  Ana- 
cletus;  but,  according  to  Irenaeus,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Alex- 
ander, was  Linus,  Ana.cletus,  and  Clemens.  The  arrangement 
of  Epiphanius,  Nicephorus,  Ruffinus,  and  Prosper,  is,  Linus, 
Cletus,  and  Clemens :  whilst  that  of  Anastasius,  Platina,  More, 
Binius,  Crabbe,  Labbe  and  Cossart,  is  Linus,  Cletus,  Clemens, 
and  Anacletus.  Cletus,  who  is  inserted  by  others,  is  omitted 
by  Augustine,  Optatus,  Damasus  and  the  apostolic  constitutions. 
Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Pagius,  Godeau,  and  Petavius  reckon 
Cletus  and  Anacletus  two  different  pontiffs.  Cotelerius,  Fleury, 
Baillet,  and  Alexander  account  these  two  names  for  the  same 
person.  Bruys  and  Cossart  confess,  that  whether  Cletus  and 
Anacletus  were  identical  or  distinct,  is  doubtful  or  unknown. f 

1  Tren.  III.  3.     Euseb.  III.  21.     Epiphan.  II.  XXVII.  Jerom,  4  107.  126.    Theod 
in  Tim.  4.     Optatus,  II.     Ansr.  Ep.  161.     Con.  Ap.  VII.  46.     Tertul.  213. 

2  Alex.  1.545.     Cotel.  1.387.     Bin.  1.  30.    Nicep.  II.    Frosp.  1.  410.    Anastaat 
in  Pet.     Crabb.  I.  30.     Coss.  1.  6.     Bell.  II.  5.     Godeau,  1.  389. 


74  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

The  variations  of  historians  in  this  manner,  have  introduc  ed 
confusion  into  the  annals  of  the  Roman  pontiffs.  Petavius  con- 
fesses their  doubtfulness  till  the  time  of  Victor,  and  Bruys,  the 
impossibility  of  discovering  the  fact.  The  most  eagle-eyed 
writers,  says  Cossart,  cannot,  amid  the  darkness  of  these  ages, 
elicit  a  shadow  of  truth  or  certainty  in  the  Papal  succession.1 
This  diversity  appears,  indeed,  in  the  history  of  the  Popeclom, 
during  the  early,  the  middle,  and  the  modern  ages.  The  par- 
tizans  of  Romanism  boast  of  an  uninterrupted  and  unbroken 
succession  in  the  sovereign  Pontiffs  and  in  the  Holy  See.  But 
this  is  all  empty  bravado.  The  fond  conceit  shuns  the  light ; 
and  vanishes,  on  examination,  like  the  dream  of  the  morning. 
Each  historian,  ancient  and  modern,  has  his  own  catalogue  of 
Popes,  and  scarcely  two  agree.  The  rolls  of  the  Pontiffs, 
supplied  by  the  annalists  of  the  papacy,  are  more  numerous 
than  all  the  denominations  which  have  affected  the  appellation 
of  Protestantism.  Such  are  a  few  of  the  historical  variations 
on  this  topic,  and  the  consequent  disorder  and  uncertainty. 

Electoral  variations  have  produced  similar  difficulty.  The 
electors,  differing  in  their  objects  as  the  historians  in  their  de- 
tails, have  caused  many  schisms  in  the  papacy.  These,  Baro- 
nius  reckons  at  twenty-six.  Onuphrius  mentions  thirty,  which 
is  the  common  estimation.  A  detailed  account  of  all  these 
would  be  tedious.  Some  are  more  and  some  less  important, 
and,  therefore,  in  proportion  to  their  moment,  claim  a  mere 
allusion  or  a  circumstantial  history.  The  following  observations 
will  refer  to  the  second,  seventh,  thirteenth,  nineteenth,  twenty- 
ninth,  and  thirtieth  schisms. 

The  second  schism  in  the  papacy  began  in  the  ecclesiastical 
reigns  of  Liberius  and  Felix,  and  lasted  about  three  years. 
Liberius,  who  was  lawful  bishop,  and  who,  for  a  time,  opposed 
Arianism,  was  banished  in  355  to  Berea,  by  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantius.  Felix,  in  the  meantime,  was,  by  the  Arian  faction, 
elected  in  the  room  of  Liberius,  and  ordained  by  Epictetus, 
Basil,  and  Acasius.  Liberius,  afterwards,  weary  of  exile, 
signed  the  Arian  creed,  and  was  recalled  from  banishment, 
and  restored  to  the  Popedom.  His  return  was  followed  by 
sanguinary  battles  between  the  two  contending  factions.  The 
clergy  were  murdered  in  the  very  churches.  Felix,  however, 
with  his  party,  was  at  length  overthrown,  and  forced  to  yield. 


1  Fluxa  et  dubia,  quae  de  summis  pontificibus  ad  Victorem  usque  traduntur. 
Petav.  2.  130.  II  est  impossible  de  decouvrir  la  verite.  Bruy.  1.  27.  Nee  in 
tantu  saeculorum  caligine,  oculatissimi  quique  scriptores  quidquam  indicare  potue- 
rint,  ex  quo  veritatis  umbra  saltern  aliqua  appareat.  Nee  certi  quidquam  statui 
posse  arbitror  do  illorum  ordine  et  successione.  Cossart,  1.  1. 


SCHISMS    IN    THE    PAPACY.  76 

He  retired  to  his  estate  on  the  road  to  Ponto,  where,  at  the  end 
of  seven  years,  ho  died.1 

The  several  claims  of  these  two  Arians  to  the  papacy  have 
caused  great  diversity  of  opinion  between  the  ancients  and  the 
moderns.  Liberius,  though  guilty  of  Arianism,  was  supported 
by  legitimacy  of  election  and  ordination.  Felix,  on  the  con- 
trary, was  obtruded  in  an  irregular  manner  by  the  Arian  party. 
Godeau  represents  his  ordination  as  surpassing  all  belief,  and 
compares  the  ceremony  on  the  occasion  to  '  the  abomination  of 
Antichrist.'2  Felix  had  sworn  to  resist  the  intrusion  of  another 
bishop  during  the  life  of  Liberius.  His  holiness,  therefore,  in 
accepting  the  Popedom,  was  guilty  of  perjury.  His  Infalli- 
bility, according  to  Socrates  and  Jerome,  was  an  Arian ;  and, 
according  to  Theodoret,  Ruffinus,  Baronius,  Spondanus,  Go- 
deau, Alexander,  and  Moreri,  communicated  with  the  Arians, 
and  condemned  Athanasius.  All  the  ancients,  among  whom 
are  Jerome,  Optatus,  Augustine,  Athanasius,  and  Prosper,  fol- 
lowed, in  modern  days,  by  Panvinius,  Bona,  Moreri,  Lupus, 
and  Fleury,  reject  his  claim  to  the  Papacy.  Athanasius  calls 
his  holiness  '  a  monster,  raised  to  the  Roman  hierarchy,  by  the 
malice  of  Antichrist/3 

These  two  Arians,  nevertheless,  are,  at  the  present  day,  Ro- 
man saints.  Their  names  are  on  the  roll  of  canonization  ;  and 
the  legality  and  validity  of  their  Popedom  are  maintained  by 
the  papal  community.  The  Arian  Liberius  is  the  object  of 
Romish  worship.  The  devout  papist,  according  to  the  Roman 
missal  and  breviary,  on  this  saint's  festival,  addresses  his  Arian 
Infallibility  as  '  the  light  of  the  holy  church,  and  the  lover  of 
the  Divine  law,  whom  God  loved  and  clothed  with  the  robe  of 
glory,'  while  supplication  is  made  for  *  pardon  of  all  sin,  through 
his  merits  and  intercession.'4  Similar  blasphemy  and  idolatry 
are  addressed  to  Felix,  who,  in  the  days  of  antiquity,  was  ac- 
counted an  Arian,  a  perjurer,  an  antichristian  monster  and 
abomination,  shunned  by  all  the  Roman  people  like  contagion  ; 
b.it  who  is  now  reckoned  a  saint  and  a  martyr. 

His  saintship,  however,  had  nearly  lost  his  seat  in  heaven  in 
1582,  when  the  KEYS,  for  the  purpose  of  reforming  the  Roman 
Calendar,  were  transferred  from  Peter  to  Baronius.  Doubts 
were  entertained  of  the  perjured  Arian' s  title  to  heaven.  Gre- 
gory the  Thirteenth,  however,  judging  it  uncourteous  to 

1  Socrat.  IV.  5.     Jerome,  4.  124.     Platina,  44. 

8  Une  image  de  1'abomination  de  1' Antichrist.     Godeau,  2.  266. 

3  Athan.  aJ  Sol.     Labb.  2.  991.     Spon.  357.     XVII.  et  355.  X.     Socrat.  II.  37. 
Baffin.  1.     Thood.  II.  17.     Bruy.  1.  123.     Alex.  7.  20.     Moreri,  4.  42. 

4  Ejas  intercedentibus  meritis  ab    omnibus  nos  absolve  peccatis.     Miss.  Rom. 
P.  XIV.     Brev.  Rom.  P.  XXXV. 


76  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

uncanonize  his  holiness,  and  turn  him  out  of  heaven  without  a 
fair  trial,  appointed  Baronius  as  counsel  for  the  prosecution, 
a'nd  Santorio  for  the  defence.  Santorio,  unable  to  answer  the 
arguments  of  Baronius,  prayed  to  his  client  the  departed  Pon- 
tiff' for  assistance.  The  timely  interposition  of  a  miracle,, 
accordingly,  came  to  the  aid  of  his  feeble  advocacy.  Felix 
was  just  going  to  descend,  like  a  falling  star,  from  heaven,  when 
a  marble  coffin  was  discovered  in  the  Basilic  of  Cosmas  and 
Damian,  with  this  inscription  :  '  The  body  of  Saint  Felix,  who 
condemned  Constantius.'  This  phenomenon,  which  Moreri 
calls  a  fable,  and  Bruys  a  cheat,  silenced,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, all  opposition.  TE  DEUM  was  sung  for  the  triumph  of 
truth  ;  and  the  perjured  Arian  Vicar-General  of  God,  was 
declared  worthy  the  honours  of  martyrdom, — canonization  and 
worship.1 

The  seventh  schism  distinguished  the  spiritual  reigns  of  Sil- 
verius  and  Vigilius.  Silverius,  in  536,  was  elected  by  simony. 
He  bribed  Theodatus,  who,  says  Anastasius,  threatened  to  put 
all  who  should  oppose  him  to  the  sword.2  His  election,  Godeau 
admits,  was  owing  to  the  power  of  the  Gothic  king,  rather  than 
to  the  authority  of  the  Roman  clergy.  His  ordination,  in  con- 
sequence, was  the  effect  of  fear  and  violence.3 

The  election  and  ordination  of  Silverius,  therefore,  according 
to  a  Bull  of  Julius  and  a  canon  of  the  Lateran  Council,  was 
illegal  and  invalid.  Julius  the  Second  pronounced  the  nullity 
of  an  election  effected  by  simony,  and  declared  the  candidate 
an  apostate,  a  thief,  a  robber,  a  heresiarch,  a  magician,  a  pagan, 
and  a  publican.  The  elected,  in  this  case,  might  be  prosecuted 
for  heresy,  and  deposed  by  the  secular  arm  ;  while  the  electors 
were  to  be  deprived  of  their  possessions  and  dignity.  The 
Lateran  Council,  in  which  Nicholas  the  Second  presided,  de- 
creed the  invalidity  of  an  election  obtained  by  simony,  the 
favour  of  the  powerful,  or  the  cabals  of  the  people  or  soldiery. 
Possession  of  the  Papacy,  procured  in  this  way,  exposed  tl.e 
intruder,  as  a  felon,  to  deposition  Dy  the  clergy  and  laity.4 
These  regulations  abrogated  the  claims  of  Silverius  to  the 
Pontifical  throne. 

Silverius,  who  obtained  the  Popedom  by  simony,  was,  in  a 
short  time,  supplanted  by  Vigilius,  who  also  gained  the  same 
dignity  by  similar  means.  His  stratagems  were  aided  by  the 
machinations  of  Theodora  and  Belisarius.  Theodora  the  Em- 
press was  friendly  to  Monophysitism,  and  hostile  to  the  council 

1  Spon.  357.  XVIII.    Labb.  2.  993.  2  Gladio  puniretur.    Anastasius,  2 1 . 

3  Ordinato  Silverio  sub  vi  et  metu.     Anastasins,  21. 

4  Is  non  Apostolicua,  srd  Apostaticus,  liceatquecardinalibus,  clericis,  laicis,  ilium 
ut  praedonem  auathematizare.     Caranza,  51.     Platina,  146. 


SCHISMS    IN    THE    PAPACY.  77 

of  Chalcedon.  Her  aim  was  the  degradation  of  Mennas,  the 
Byzantine  patriarch,  who  adhered  to  the  Chalcedonian  faith  ; 
and  the  restoration  of  Anthimus,  Theodosius,  and  Severus, 
who  had  been  deposed  for  their  attachment  to  the  Monophysite 
heresy.  Theodora  applied  to  Silverius  for  the  execution  of  her 
design,  and  was  refused.  She  then  turned  her  attention  tc 
Vigilius,  and  offered  him  seven  hundred  pieces  of  gold  and  the 
Papacy,  to  effect  her  intention.  The  offer  was  accepted.  The 
Empress  then  suborned  Belisarius,  at  Rome,  to  expel  the 
refractory  Silverius,  and  raise  the  complying  Vigilius  to  the 
Papal  chair.  The  General,  influenced  by  the  Empress  and 
aided  by  his  wife  Antonia,  obeyed.  He  scrupled,  indeed,  at 
first ;  but  on  reflection,  like  a  prudent  casuist,  complied.  Two 
hundred  pieces  of  gold,  which  he  received  from  Vigilius,  had, 
in  all  probability,  a  happy  effect  in  reconciling  his  conscience, 
such  as  it  was,  to  his  work.  False  witnesses  were  suborned 
against  Silverius.  These  accused  the  Pontiff  of  a  design  to 
betray  the  city  to  the  Goths.  He  was  banished,  in  consequence, 
to  Palmaria,  where,  according  to  Liberatus,  he  died  of  hunger, 
but,  according  to  Procopius,  by  assassination.  The  degrada- 
tion of  Silverius  was  followed  by  the  promotion  of  Vigilius, 
who  assumed  the  Pontifical  authority.  The  enactments  of 
Julius  and  the  Later  an  Council  condemn  Vigilius  as  well  as 
Silverius.1 

The  election  and  ordination  of  Vigilius  were  invalid,  prior 
to  the  death  of  Silverius.  Two  Pontiffs,  according  to  the 
canons,  could  not,  at  the  same  time,  occupy  the  Papal  chair. 
Ordination  into  a  full  See,  besides,  was  condemned  by  the 
Nicean  Council.  Baronius,  Binius,  and  Maimbourg,  indeed, 
pretend  that  Vigilius,  on  the  dissolution  of  his  competitor,  re- 
signed, and  was  again  elected.2  Nothing  of  the  kind,  how- 
ever, is  mentioned  by  any  cotemporary  historian.  No  monu- 
ment of  his  abdication,  says  Alexander,  is  extant.3  The 
annalist  and  the  collector  of  councils,  therefore,  must  have  got 
the  news  by  inspiration.  Procopius,  on  the  contrary,  dates  the 
election  of  Vigilius  immediately  after  the  banishment  of  Sil- 
verius, and  Liberatus,  on  the  next  day.  Du  Pin  and  Pagius, 
accordingly,  with  their  usual  candour,  reject  the  tale  of  re- 
election, and  found  the  title  of  Vigilius  on  his  general  reception 
in  Christendom.4 

The  simony  of  the  two  rivals  betrays  the  canonical  illegiti- 
macy of  their  election.  The  occupation  of  the  Episcopal  chair 

1  Godeau,   4.  204.     Bin.  4.  141.     Bruy.  1.  315.     Platina,  68.     Procop.  1.  25. 

2  Baron.  54*0.  IV.     Bin.  4.  142.     Maimb.  66. 

3  Quod  si  Vigilius  abdicavit,  ex  nullo  monumento  habetur.     Ale*  12.  32. 

4  Procopius,  281.     Libera.  c.  22.     Du  Pin,  1.  452.     Bruy   1.  330. 


78  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

by  his  predecessor,  besides,  destroyed  the  title  of  Vigilius. 
His  moral  character,  also,  if  villany  could  affect  his  claims, 
placed  another  obstacle  in  his  way.  His  history  forms  an  un- 
interrupted tissue  of  enormity  and  abomination.  He  was 
guilty  of  murder,  covetousness,  perfidy,  prostitution  of  religion 
for  selfish  ends,  and  mockery  of  both  God  and  man.  He 
killed  his  secretary  with  the  blow  of  a  club.  He  whipped  his 
nephew  to  death,  and  was  accessory  to  the  assassination  of 
Silverius.  His  conduct  with  Theodora,  Belisarius,  Justinian, 
and  the  fifth  general  council,  showed  him  to  be  a  miser  and  a 
traitor,  regardless  of  religion  and  honour,  of  God  and  man.1 

The  thirteenth  schism  disgraced  the  Papacy  of  Formosus 
and  Sergius.  Formosus,  in  893,  gained  the  Pontifical  throne 
by  bribery.  His  infallibility,  therefore,  by  the  Bulls  of  Nicho- 
las and  Julius,  forfeited  all  claim  to  the  ecclesiastical  supremacy. 
He  was  Bishop  of  Porto,  and  therefore  was  incapacitated, 
according  to  the  canons,  to  become  Bishop  of  Rome.  He  had 
sworn  to  John  the  Eighth,  by  whom  he  had  been  excommuni- 
cated and  banished,  never  to  revisit  the  Roman  metropolis. 
His  holiness,  therefore,  was  guilty  of  perjury.  The  hierarch, 
contrary  to  another  canon,  had  recourse,  in  his  extremity,  when 
the  Sergian  party  opposed  his  election,  to  the  aid  of  Arnolf, 
the  Gothic  king.  His  Majesty's  authority,  however,  though 
uncanonical,  was  successful.  Sergius,  his  rival,  whose  claims 
were  supported  by  a  Roman  faction,  was  expelled  by  royal 
power ;  and  Formosus  retained  possession  of  the  Papal  sove- 
reignty till  the  day  of  his  death.2 

But  an  extraordinary  scene  was  exhibited  by  his  successor. 
Stephen,  who  succeeded  in  896,  raged  with  unexampled  fury 
against  the  memory  and  remains  of  Formosus.  Solon,  a  hea- 
then legislator,  enacted  a  law  to  forbid  the  Athenians  to  speak 
evil  of  the  dead.  But  the  vicar-general  of  God  outraged,  in 
this  respect,  the  laws  of  earth  and  heaven.  Stephen  unearthed 
the  mouldering  body  of  Formosus,  which,  robed  in  Pontifical 
ornaments,  he  placed  before  a  Roman  Council  that  he  had 
assembled.  He  then  asked  the  lifeless  pontiff,  why,  being 
bishop  of  Porto,  he  had,  contrary  to  the  canons,  usurped  the 
Roman  See.  The  body  probably  made  no  unnecessary  reply. 
The  pontiff  then  stripped  the  bloated  corpse,  and  amputated 
its  head  and  fingers.  The  disinterred  and  mutilated  carcass, 
despoiled  of  its  dress  and  mangled  in  a  shocking  manner,  he 
threw  without  any  funeral  honours  or  solemnity  into  the  Tiber. 
He  rescinded  his  acts,  and  declared  his  ordinations  irregular 

1  Piatina,  68. 

*  Alex.  15.  82.    Bruys,  2.  186.     Baron.  897.  1. 


SCHISMS    IN    THE    PAPACY.  79 

and  invalid.1  Such  was  the  atrocity  perpetrated  by  the 
viceroy  of  heaven,  and  approved  and  sanctioned  by  a  holy 
Roman  council. 

Stephen's  sentence,  however,  was  afterwards  repealed  by  his 
successor.  John  the  Tenth,  on  his  accession,  assembled  a 
synod  of  seventy-four  bishops  at  Ravenna,  condemned  the  acts 
of  Stephen,  and  re-established  the  ordinations  of  Formosus. 
But  John's  decisions  again  were  destined  to  proclaim  the  vari- 
ations of  Popery,  and  display  the  mutability  of  earthly  things. 
Sergius  the  Third,  on  his  promotion  to  the  Roman  Hierarchy, 
called  a  council,  rescinded  the  acts  of  John,  and  once  more 
annulled  the  ordinations  of  Formosus.2 

Vengeance  soon  overtook  Stephen,  the  violator  of  the  sepul- 
chre and  the  dead.  His  miscreancy  met  with  condign  punish- 
ment. The  Romans,  unable  to  bear  his  ruffianism,  expelled 
his  holiness  from  the  hierarchy.  He  was  then  immured  in  a 
dungeon,  loaded  with  chains,  and  finally  strangled.  He 
entered,  says  Baronius,  like  a  thief,  and  died  as  he  deserved 
by  the  rope.  '  This  father  and  teacher  of  ah1  Christians,'  was, 
says  Bruys,  ignorant  as  he  was  wicked.  This  head  of  the 
church  and  vicar-general  of  God  was  unacquainted  with  the 
first  elements  of  learning.3 

Omitting  the  intermediate  distractions  in  the  Papacy,  the 
nineteenth  schism  deformed  the  ecclesiastical  reigns  of  Bene- 
dict, Silvester,  and  John.  Benedict  was  son  to  Alberic  Count 
of  Tuscany;  and,  in  1033,  was  raised  to  the  pontifical  throne 
in  the  tenth  or,  some  say,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  his  age.  His 
promotion  was  the  effect  of  simony,  and  his  life  was  a  scene  of 
pollution.  His  days  were  spent  in  debauchery.  He  dealt, 
says  Benno,  in  sorcery,  and  sacrificed  to  Demons.4 

Such  was  the  miscreant,  who,  for  ten  years,  was,  according 
to  the  popish  system,  the  head  of  the  church,  the  judge  of  con- 
troversy, and,  in  deciding  on  questions  of  faith,  the  organ  of  in- 
spiration. A  Roman  faction,  however,  in  1044,  headed  by  the 
Consul  Ptolemy,  expelled  Benedict  and  substituted  Silvester. 
But  Silvester's  reign  lasted  only  a  short  time.  The  Tuscan 
faction,  in  three  months,  expelled  Silvester  and  restored  Bene- 
dict. Benedict  again  soon  resigned  in  favour  of  John.  He  was 
induced  to  retire,  to  avoid  the  public  odium  caused  by  hismis- 

1  Luitp.  1.  8.  Spon.  897.  II  Bruy.  2.  193.  Platina,  126.  Petav.  J.  407. 
Bin.  7.  162. 

Stephanus,  Formosum  post  obi  turn  mense  effosum,  et  in  Bella  positum,  crimina- 
turn,  et  quasi  convictum,  degradavit,  etpercrurade  ecclesia  pertractum  in  Tiberiw 
projici  praecepit.  Hermann,  Anno  896.  Canisius,  3.  256. 

*  Platina,  127?J128.     Luitprand,  I.  7. 

3  Spon.  900.  II.     Baron.  900.  V.     Bruys,  2,  194. 

4  Spon.  1033.  II.     Du  Pin,  2.  206.     Bruy.  2.  327.     Bin.  7   221 


80  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

creancy,  and  to  enjoy  a  freer  indulgence  in  licentiousness  and 
sensuality.  Led  by  this  view,  the  vicar-general  of  God  sold 
the  papacy  for  1500  pounds  to  John.1  Benedict  then  departed, 
with  the  price  of  the  papal  chair,  to  private  life,  to  continue  his 
debauchery.  Silvester,  in  the  mean  time,  resolved  tore-assert 
his  right  to  the  pontifical  throne,  and  took  possession  of  the 
Vatican.  Benedict,  weary  of  privacy,  renewed  his  claim,  and 
seized,  by  dint  of  arms,  on  the  Lateran.  These  three  ruffians, 
therefore,  Silvester,  John,  and  Benedict,  on  this  unexampled 
occasion,  occupied  Saint  Mary's,  the  Vatican,  and  the  Lateran; 
and  fixed  their  head  quarters  in  the  principal  Basilics  of  the 
Roman  capital.  *  A  three-headed  BEAST,'  says  Binius  and 
Labbe,  '  rising  from  the  gates  of  hell,  infested  in  a  woful 
manner  the  holy  chair.'2  A  three-headed  monster,  therefore, 
emerging  from  the  portals  of  the  infernal  pit,  constituted  a  link 
in  the  sacred  unbroken  chain  of  the  pontifical  succession. 

The  conduct  of  Benedict,  Silvester,  and  John  exhibited,  on 
the  occasion,  an  extraordinary  spectacle.  Their  mutual  agree- 
ment and  concessions  were  not  the  least  striking  traits  in  the 
picture.  These  wretches  resolved  not  to  interrupt  their  plea- 
sures by  unnecessary  contention.  No  attempt  was  made  at 
reciprocal  expulsion.  These  earthly  Gods  forbore  to  waste 
the  precious  hours  of  sensuality  in  vain  jangling,  and,  in  the 
utmost  harmony,  divided  the  ecclesiastical  revenues,  which 
they  spent  in  revelry  and  intoxication. 

Gratian,  in  the  mean  time,  a  man  of  rank  and  authority, 
added  another  feature  to  the  ridiculousness  of  the  spectacle. 
His  design  was  to  deliver  the  church  from  this  three-headed 
monster.  The  end  might  be  praiseworthy  ;  but  the  means  was 
something  like  that  attempted  by  Simon  the  magician.  The 
argument  which  he  used  on  the  occasion  was  in  the  form  of 
money.3  He  purchased  the  papacy,  with  all  the  appurtenances 
thereunto  belonging,  be  the  same  more  or  less,  from  the  pro- 
prietors, Benedict,  Silvester,  and  John.  Benedict,  probably  on 
account  of  his  greater  interest  in  the  property,  received  the 
greatest  compensation.  He  stipulated  for  the  ecclesiastical 
revenues  of  England,  to  expend  in  every  enormity.  Gratian's 
money,  which,  according  to  Platina,  was  in  these  times  a  ready 

1  Vendidit  Papatum  complici  suo,  acceptis,  ab  eo,  libris  mille  quingentis.    Benno, 
in  Hildeb.    Moyennant  une  somme  de  quinze  livres  de  deniere,  il  ceda  le  Pontifical 
a  Jean.     Bruy.  2.  331.     Spon.  1044.  I.  II.     Le  siege  de  Rome  devenu  la  proie  de 
P  avarice  et  de  P  ambition,  etoit  donne  au  plus  offrant.     Giannon,  VII.  5.  An. 
Eccl.  345. 

2  Triceps  Bestia,  ab  inferorum  portis  emergens,  sanctissimam  Petri  cathedram 
miserrime  infestavit.     Bin.  7.  221.     Labb.  11.  1280. 

8  Eis  a  sede  sancta  cedere,  pecunia  persuasit.  Spon.  1048.  I.  Platina-  142, 
Bruy.  2.  332.  Bin.  7.  227.  Labb.  11.  1303. 


GREAT    WESTERN     SCHISM.  8-1 

passport  to  the  papacy,  delivered  the  Holy  See  from  the 
usurpers.  Gratian  himself  succeeded,  under  the  appellation 
of  Gregory  the  Sixth.  The  patrons  of  Romanism  may  deter- 
mine which  of  those  three  ruffians,  Benedict,  Silvester,  or  John, 
preserved  the  pontifical  succession,  and  was  on  earth  the  vice- 
roy of  heaven. 

The  great  western  schism,  which  constituted  the  twenty- 
ninth  division  in  the  popedom,  troubled  the  ecclesiastical  reigns 
of  Urban,  Boniface,  Innocent,  Gregory,  Clement,  and  Benedict. 
This  contest  began  in  1378,  and  distracted  Christendom  for 
half  a  century  with  atrocity  and  revolution.1  The  papal  court 
having  continued  at  Avignon  for  seventy  years,  was  restored 
to  Rome  by  Gregory  the  Eleventh.  The  conclave  proceeding 
at  his  death,  in  1378,  to  a  new  election,  a  mob  of  thirty  thou- 
sand, fearing,  should  a  Frenchman  be  chosen,  that  he  would 
remove  to  Avignon,  threatened  the  cardinals  with  death,  if  they 
did  not  select  an  Italian.  The  sixteen  electors,  twelve  French 
and  four  Italian,  intimidated  by  such  a  formidable  sedition, 
returned  Urban  the  Sixth,  a  Neapolitan,  or  some  say,  a  Pisan. 
But  retiring  to  Fundi  as  a  place  of  safety,  the  sacred  college 
appointed  Clement  the  Seventh  to  the  popedom.2  Clement,  at 
Avignon,  was  succeeded  by  Benedict ;  and  Urban,  at  Rome, 
by  Boniface,  Innocent,  and  Gregory. 

Urban  and  Clement  divided  Christendom.  The  church 
could  not  determine  which  of  the  two  was  its  head,  the  vicar 
general  of  God,  and  the  plenipotentiary  of  heaven.  The  rival 
pontiffs  therefore  received,  in  nearly  equal  proportions,  the 
obedience  of  the  European  kingdoms.  Scotland,  France,  Spain, 
Arragon,  Castile,  Lorrain,  Naples,  Navarre,  Sicily,  Cyprus,  and 
Savoy  acknowledged  Clement ;  while  Urban  was  recognized 
by  Italy,  Portugal,  Germany,  England,  Belgium,  Hungary, 
Bohemia,  Poland,  Russia,  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway. 
A  few  states  remained  neutral ;  and  some,  for  a  time,  obeyed 
his  Roman  holiness,  and  afterwards,  according  to  the  dictation 
of  policy,  conscience,  whim,  or  passion,  shifted  to  his  French 
infallibility.3  Hainault  asserted  its  neutrality.  Arragon  at  first 
hesitated,  but  soon  recognized  Urban;  and  afterwards,  when 
the  pontiff  disputed  the  sovereign's  pretensions  to  Sicily,  affected 
neutrality,  and  finally  declared  without  any  ceremony  in  favour 
of  Clement.  Spain  and  Naples,  at  the  commencement  of  the 
«chism,  supported  the  Italian  hierarch ;  but  afterward,  in  the 
fluctuation  of  caprice  or  folly,  veered  round  to  the  French 

1  Ge  schisme  dum  plus  de  50  ans.     Moi'ery,  3.  454. 
'  Platina,  233.  Alex.  24.  439.     Daniel,  5.  244.     Giannon,  XXIII.  4. 
*  Nonnullis  interdum  variantibus,  et  neutralitatem  amplexautibus.  Alex.  20.  254. 
6 


82  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  ! 

pontiff.  Joanna,  the  Neapolitan  queen,  received  Clement  with 
particular  honours.  His  holiness,  on  the  occasion,  had  his 
sacred  foot  well  kissed.  The  queen  began  the  AUGUST  CERE- 
MONY :  and  her  majesty's  holy  example  was  followed  with 
great  elegance  and  edification  by  the  Neapolitan  barons,  knights, 
ladies,  and  gentlemen,  such  as  Margaret,  Agnes,  Otho,  Robertas, 
and  Durazzo.  Urban,  in  return,  as  a  token  of  his  pontifical 
friendship,  deposed  Joanna  from  her  royalty,  despoiled  her  of 
her  kingdom,  and  recommended  her  soul  to  the  devil.1  Two 
powerful  and  contending  factions,  in  this  manner,  divided  the 
papacy,  and  distracted  the  Latin  communion. 

The  schism  spread  dissension,  animosity,  demoralization, 
and  war  through  the  European  nations  ;  and  especially  through 
Italy,  France,  Spain,  and  Germany.  Kings  and  clergy  formed 
ecclesiastical  factions,  according  to  the  dictates  of  faith  or  fancy. 
The  pontiffs  pursued  their  several  interests,  often  without  policy, 
and  always  without  principle.  The  pontifical  conscience  eva- 
porated in  ambition  and  malignity.  The  kings,  in  general, 
dictated  the  belief  of  the  priesthood  and  laity,  who  followed 
the  faith  or  faction,  the  principles  or  party  of  their  sovereign. 
Christendom,  in  consequence,  was  demoralized.  Paper  and 
ink,  says  Niem,  would  fail  to  recount  the  cabals  and  iniquity 
of  the  rival  pontiffs,  who  were  hardened  in  obduracy,  and  full 
of  the  machinations  of  Satan.  High  and  low,  prince  and  peo- 
ple, abjured  all  shame  and  fear  of  God.  The  belligerents,  who 
waged  the  war,  carried  it  on  by  unchristian  machinations,  which 
disgraced  reason  and  man.  The  arms  used  on  the  occasion 
were  excommunication,  anathemas,  deposition,  perjury,  pre- 
varication, duplicity,  proscription,  saints,  miracles,  revelations, 
dreams,  visions,  the  rack,  the  stiletto,  .and  the  dagger.2 

Urban  and  his  electors  had  the  honour  of  opening  the  cam- 
paign. These  commenced  hostilities  with  a  free  use  of  their 
spiritual  artillery.  The  cardinals  declared  the  nullity  of  Urban's 
appointment,  and  enjoined  his  speedy  abdication.  But  his 
infallibility  had  no  relish  for  either  the  declaration  or  the  injunc- 
tion ;  and  resolved  to  retain  his  dignity.  The  sacred  college 
in  their  extremity,  had  recourse  to  excommunication.  The 
ecclesiastical  artillery  was  well  served  on  the  occasion,  and 
launched  their  anathemas  with  singular  precision  ;  but,  never- 
theless, without  effect.  His  holiness,  in  addition  to  these  exe- 
crations, was,  by  his  own  electors,  found  guilty  of  apostacy, 
usurpation,  intrusion,  dissemination  of  heresy,  arid  enmity  to 
religion  and  truth.3 

1  Labb.  15.  940.     Bruy.  3,  535,  539,  557.     Du  Pin,  2.  509.     Coss.  3.  632,  638. 
*  Bruy.  3.  651.     Daniel,  5.  238.  3  Bruy.  3.  529.     Daniel,  5.  207.  308. 


GREAT    WESTERN    SCHISM.  83 

His  infallibility  soon  returned  these  compliments.  The 
plenipc  tentiary  of  heaven  was  gifted  with  a  signal  facility  in 
hurling  excommunications,  and  fulminated  his  anathemas  with 
singular  practical  skill.  He  was  enabled,  in  consequence,  to 
repay  the  conclave's  congratulation  with  due  interest.  He 
anathematized  his  electors,  whom  he  called  sons  of  perdition 
and  heresy,  a  nursery  of  scandal  and  treachery,  who  were 
guilty  of  apostacy,  conspiracy,  treason,  blasphemy,  rapine, 
sacrilege,  contumacy,  pride,  and  calumny.  Their  cold  remains 
after  death,  his  infallibility,  by  a  judicial  sentence,  deprived  of 
Christian  burial.  The  persons  who  should  consign  their  life- 
less bodies  to  the  grave  with  funeral  honours,  he  also  excom- 
municated, till  with  the  hands  which  administered  the  sepulchral 
solemnity,  they  should  unearth  the  mouldering  flesh,  and  cast 
each  accursed  and  putrifying  carcass  from  the  consecrated  soil 
of  the  hallowed  tomb.1 

Seven  of  his  cardinals,  whom  he  suspected  of  a  conspiracy 
against  his  life,  he  punished  with  a  more  cruel  sentence.  The 
accused  were  men  of  merit  and  of  a  literary  character  ;  whilst 
the  accusation  was  unsupported  by  any  evidence.  But  his 
holiness,  outraging  reason  and  common  sense,  pretended  to  a 
special  revelation  of  their  guilt.  He  also,  in  defiance  of  mercy 
and  justice,  put  the  alleged  conspirators  to  the  rack  to  extort  a 
confession.  The  tortures  which  they  endured  were  beyond 
description  ;  but  no  guilt  was  acknowledged.  The  unfeeling 
pontiff,  in  hardened  insensibility,  amidst  the  groans  of  the 
agonizing  sufferers,  counted  his  beads  in  cold  blood,  and  en- 
couraged the  executioners  in  the  work  of  torment.  His 
nephew,  unreproved,  laughed  aloud  at  sight  of  the  horrid 
spectacle.  These  unhappy  men  afterwards  suffered  death. 
The  pontiff  slew  Aquilla  in  his  flight  from  Nocera  and  the 
Neapolitan  army,  and  left  the  unburied  body  for  the  flesh  to 
moulder  without  a  grave,  and  the  bones  to  whiten  in  the  sun. 
Five  of  the  cardinals,  according  to  common  report,  he  thrust 
into  sacks,  and  threw  into  the  sea.  Two,  says  Callenicio,  were 
beheaded  with  an  axe.  The  headless  bodies  were  fried  in  an 
oven,  and  then  reduced  to  powder.  This,  kept  in  bags,  was 
carried  before  Urban  to  terrify  others  from  a  similar  con- 
spiracy.2 

The  holy  pontiffs  next  encountered  each  other  in  the  war  of 
excommunication.  Urban  and  Clement,  says  Alexander, 
'  hurled  mutual  execrations  and  anathemas.'  These  vicegerents 

1  Labb.  15.  942,  944.     Giannon,  XXIII.  4. 

2  Labb.  15.  9^1.     Bruy.  3.  547.     Giannon,  XXI7.  1. 

3  Mutuas  diras,  execrationes,  et  anathematum  fulmina,  &b  Urbano  et  Clementu. 
vibrata.     Alex.  20.  '-354.     Bruy.  3.  515. 

6* 


84  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

of  God  cursed  one  another  indeed  with  sincere  devotion.  His 
holiness  at  Rome  hailed  his  holiness  at  Avignon  with  direful 
imprecations  :  and  the  Christian  and  polite  salutation  was 
returned  with  equal  piety  and  fervor.  The  thunder  of  ana- 
themas, almost  without  interruption,  continued,  in  redoubled 
Tolleys  and  reciprocal  peals,  to  roar  between  the  Tiber  and  the 
Rhone.  The  rival  vice-gods,  in  the  language  of  Pope  Paul, 
unsatisfied  with  mutual  excommunications,  proceeded  with 
distinguished  ability  to  draw  full-length  portraits  of  each  other. 
Each  denominated  his  fellow  a  son  of  Belial ;  and  described, 
with  graphic  skill,  his  antichristianity,  schism,  heresy,  thievery, 
despotism,  and  treachery.  These  heads  of  the  church  might 
have  spared  their  execrations,  but  they  certainly  did  themselves 
justice  in  the  representations  of  their  moral  characters.  The 
delineations,  sketched  by  the  pencil  of  truth,  possess  ah1  the 
merit  of  pictures  taken  from  life. 

Urban  having,  in  this  manner,  excommunicated  his  com- 
petitor, proceeded  to  the  excommunication  of  several  kings 
who  withstood  his  authorky.  He  anathematized  Cle.nerl  arJ 
all  his  adherents,  which  included  the  sovereigns  of  the  oppo- 
sition. He  bestowed  a  particular  share  of  his  maledictions  on 
John,  Lewis,  Joanna,  and  Charles  of  Castile,  Anjou,  and  Naples. 
He  declared  John  a  son  of  iniquity,  and  guilty  of  apostacy, 
treason,  conspiracy,  schism,  and  heresy.  He  then  pronounced 
his  deposition  and  deprivation  of  his  dignity  and  kingdom,  ab- 
solved his  vassals  from  their  oath  of  fidelity,  and  forbade 
all,  on  pain  of  personal  excommunication  and  national  inter- 
dict, to  admit  the  degraded  Prince  into  any  city  or  country. 
He  pronounced  a  similar  sentence  against  Lewis,  on  whom 
Clement  had  bestowed  the  crown  of  Naples.  He  declared 
this  sovereign  accursed,  guilty  of  schism  and  heresy,  and 
published  a  crusado,  granting  plenary  indulgence  to  all  who 
would  arm  against  his  majesty.1 

Joanna,  Queen  of  Naples,  received  a  full  proportion  of  the 
hierarch's  maledictions.  His  holiness  declared  her  Majesty 
accursed  and  deposed,  guilty  of  treason  and  heresy,  and  pro- 
hibited all  obedience  of  this  Princess,  under  the  penalty  of  ex- 
communication of  person  and  interdict  of  the  community.  He 
next  freed  her  vassals  from  their  fealty,  transferred  her  king- 
dom to  Charles,  and  her  soul  to  Satan. 

Charles,  on  whom  Urban  had  bestowed  the  kingdom  of 
Naples,  soon  met  a  similar  destiny.  This  Prince  had  been  the 
Pontiff's  chief  patron  and  friend.  The  king's  friendship,  how- 
ever, the  hierarch,  in  a  short  time,  requited  with  anathemas 

i  Bruy.  3.  539,  541.     Giannon,  XXIII.  5.  etXXIV.  1. 


GREAT    WESTERN    SCHISM.  85 

and  degradation.  The  attachment,  indeed,  between  Charles 
and  Urban  was  the  mercenary  combination  of  two  ruffians  for 
mutual  self-interest,  against  the  unoffending  Neapolitan  Queen, 
whom  the  miscreants  betrayed  and  murdered.  But  a  quarrel 
between  the  two  assassins,  as  might  be  expected,  soon  ensued. 
The  Pontiff,  then,  in  requital  of  former  kindness,  erected  a  cross, 
lighted  tapers,  interdicted  the  kingdom,  cursed  the  king,  and 
consigned  his  Majesty,  soul  and  body,  to  the  devil.  This 
effusion  of  pontifical  gratitude  was  followed  with  dreadful  re- 
prisals. Charles  tormented  the  clergy  who  acknowledged 
Urban  as  pope,  and  offered  ten  thousand  florins  of  gold  for  his 
head,  dead  or  alive.  He  led  an  army  against  Urban,  and  be- 
sieged him,  amid  the  inroads  of  famine  and  fear,  in  the  castle 
of  Nocera.  Four  times  a  day  the  terrified  Pope  from  his 
window,  cursed  the  hostile  army  with  '  bell,  book,  and  candle- 
light.' He  bestowed  absolution  on  all  who  should  maim  any 
of  the  enemy  ;  and  on  all  who  would  come  to  his  aid,  he  con- 
ferred the  crusading  indulgence  granted  to  those  who  marched 
to  the  Holy  Land.  Urban,  in  a  wonderful  manner,  escaped, 
and  Charles  was  afterwards  assassinated  in  Hungary.  The 
holy  Pontiff  rejoiced  in  the  violent  death  of  the  Neapolitan  king. 
The  blood-stained  instrument  of  murder,  which  was  presented 
to  his  infallibility,  red  with  the  enemy's  gore,  excited  in  the 
vicar-general  of  God  a  fiendish  smile.1 

These  are  a  few  specimens  of  Urban's  ability  in  the  Pontifi- 
cal accomplishment  of  cursing.  Urban,  in  this  art,  which  is  a 
matter  of  great  importance  in  a  good  Pope,  seems  to  have  ex- 
celled Clement.  Both  indeed  showed  splendid  talents  in  this 
edifying  department,  which  is  an  essential  qualification  in  a 
plenipotentiary  of  heaven.  But  Urban,  in  this  part  of  a  Pope's 
duty,  eclipsed  his  rival  and  carried  this  practical  science  to 
perfection. 

These  mutual  maledictions,  with  which  the  competitors 
attempted  to  maintain  their  several  pretentious,  were  support- 
ed in  the  rear  by  another  species  of  ecclesiastical  artillery ; 
such  as  miracles,  visions,  dreams,  and  revelations.  Each  faction 
was  supplied  with  these  in  copious  profusion.  Peter  and 
Catharine  appeared  for  Urban.  Peter  was  a  Franciscan  and 
famed  for  sanctity,  miracles,  and  celestial  visions  ;  Catharine 
of  Sienna,  a  Dominican  virgin,  who  has  been  raised  to  the 
honours  of  saintship,  appeared  tor  his  Roman  infallibility.  She 
supported  her  patron  with  all  the  influence  of  her  sanctity,  and 
wrote  a  bad  letter  to  the  French  king  in  his  favour.  Vincent 
and  Peter  declared  for  Clement.  Vincent,  a  Dominican,  besides 

1  Bray.  3.  550.  553. 


86  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

heavenly  visions,  and  miraculous  powers,  had,  according  to  ac- 
counts, proselyted  multitudes  of  the  Jews  and  Waldenses. 
But  Vincent,  in  the  end,  deserted  his  French  holiness,  and 
called  him,  in  saintly  language,  a  schismatic  and  a  heretic. 
Peter,  the  cardinal  of  Luxemburg,  who  adhered  to  Clement, 
was  in  equal  odour  of  sanctity  and  superior  to  all  in  the  manu- 
facturing of  miracles.  F  orty-two  dead  men,  at  one  cast,  revived 
at  his  tomb.  Many  others,  of  each  sex  and  of  the  same  sancti- 
fied class,  supported  each  party.  '  Many  holy  men  and  women,1 
said  Urban' s  advocate  in  the  council  of  Modena  in  1380,  '  had 
revelations  for  his  Roman  holiness.'  His  French  infallibility's 
party  was  also  prolific  in  prophets,  prophetesses,  and  wonders. 
All  these,  in  favour  of  their  several  patrons,  saw  visions,  uttered 
revelations,  wrought  miracles,  and  dreamed  dreams.1 

The  evils  which  the  schism  had  long  inflicted  on  Christendom, 
at  length  induced  men  to  think  of  some  remedy.  The  distrac- 
tions extended  through  ah1  the  European  nations,  and  were  at- 
tended with  dreadful  effects.  The  charities  of  life,  in  the  un- 
social divisions,  were  discarded,  and  men's  minds  wound  up 
to  fury  and  madness.  Society  seemed  to  be  unhinged.  War, 
excited  by  the  rival  pontiffs  and  their  several  partizans,  desola- 
ted the  kingdoms  of  the  Latin  communion,  and  especially 
France  and  Italy.  Treachery,  cabal,  massacre,  assassination, 
robbery  and  piracy  reigned  through  the  nations.  These  evils, 
in  loud  appeal,  called  for  the  extinction  of  the  schism  in  which 
these  disorders  had  originated. 

The  end  indeed  was  the  wish  of  all.  The  European  king- 
doms were  unanimous  for  the  termination  of  division  and  the 
return  of  tranquillity.  The  means  for  effecting  the  end  were 
the  only  subject  of  disputation.  The  difficulty  consisted  in  the 
discovery  of  a  remedy.  Three  ways  were  proposed  for  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  schism.  These  were  cession,  arbitration,  and  a 
general  council.  Cession  consisted  in  the  voluntary  resigna- 
tion of  the  rivals  for  the  election  of  another,  who  should  be  ac- 
knowledged by  all  Christendom.  Arbitration  consisted  in  as- 
certaining by  competent  judges,  which  of  the  two  competitors 
was  the  true  vicar-general  of  God.  A  general  council  would, 
by  a  judical  sentence,  depose  both,  and  elect  a  third  whose 
claim  would  obtain  universal  recognition.  The  difficulty  of 
assembling  a  general  council,  and  the  utter  impossibility  of  de- 
ciding by  arbitration  on  the  claims  of  the  reigning  Pontiffs, 
militated,  in  the  general  opinion,  against  each  of  these  means. 
Cession  therefore  was  at  first  the  commonly  adopted  remedy. 

1  Alex.  20.  255.  et  21.  476,479.  Mez.  3.235.  Bruy.  3.  516.  Daniel,  5.237 
Ossart,  3.  632.  Andill.  861. 


GREAT    WESTERN    SCHISM.  87 

Resignation  and  degradation  were  the  only  plans,  which,  in 
fact,  were  attempted.  These  means,  which  alone  were  at- 
tended with  moral  possibility,  were  adopted  by  the  French 
church  and  the  Pisan  and  Constantian  council. 

The  French  favoured  the  method  of  cession.  This  plan 
was  suggested  by  the  Parisian  university,  which,  in  that  age, 
had  obtained  a  high  character  for  learning  and  Catholicism. 
This  faculty  proposed  the  renunciation  of  the  French  and  Ro- 
man hierarchs  ;  and,  in  this  proposal,  confessed  the  difficulty 
of  discrimination.  The  Sorbonne,  supported  by  the  Gallican 
church,  unable  to  decide  between  Benedict  and  Gregory, 
required  both  to  resign.  The  design,  after  some  discussion, 
was  seconded  by  the  king,  the  nobility,  the  clergy,  and  the 
people.  The  method  of  abdication  was  also  approved  and 
supported  by  the  Dukes  of  Berry,  Orleans,  and  Burgundy, 
who  governed  the  nation  during  the  indisposition  of  the  king. 
A  majority  of  the  European  kingdoms  concurred  with  the 
French  nation.  A  few,  indeed,  such  as  Portugal  and  the 
northern  nations,  refused  their  co-operation.  But  the  abdication 
of  the  contending  pontiffs  was  recommended  by  England,  Bo- 
hemia., Hungary,  Navarre,  Arragon,  Castile,  and  Sicily.1 

This  attempt,  however,  was  defeated  by  the  selfish  obstinacy 
of  the  two  competitors.  These,  to  frustrate  the  scheme,  used 
all  kinds  of  chicanery,  practised  perjury,  and  issued  anathemas 
and  execrations.  Speech,  said  a  French  wit,  was  given,  not 
to  discover,  but  to  conceal  our  sentiments.  This  observation 
was  exemplified  in  Innocent,  Gregory,  and  Benedict.  These 
viceroys  of  heaven  had  sworn  to  relinquish  their  several  claims, 
for  the  good  of  the  church  and  the  tranquillization  of  Christen- 
dom. But  the  pontifical  perjurers  violated  their  oaths  to  retain 
their  power,  and  wounded  conscience,  if  they  had  any,  to  gra- 
tify ambition.2  The  church,  therefore,  had,  for  several  years, 
two  jarring  heads,  and  God  two  perjured  vicars-general.  All 
descriptions  of  falsehood  these  impostors  added  to  perjury. 
Their  ambition  and  selfishness  caused  their  perpetration  of  any 
enormity,  and  their  submission  to  any  baseness,  which  might 
enable  them,  for  a  few  months,  to  hold  their  precarious 
authority. 

The  subtraction  of  obedience  from  Benedict  by  the  French 
was  the  consequence  of  his  shuffling  and  obstinacy.  This 
measure,  which,  like  that  of  cession,  was  suggested  by  the 
Parisian  university,  consisted  in  the  rejection  of  his  infallibility's 
authority.  The  King,  at  the  instance  of  the  Sorbonne  faculty, 

1  Dan.  5.  337.  381 .     Du  Pin,  2.  512. 

»  Labb.  15. 1003,  1080,  1081.     Coss.  3.  695.     Daniel,  5.  431. 


88  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

called  an  assembly  of  the  bishops,  abbots,  and  universities  oi 
the  kingdom  ;  and  the  meeting  was  also  attended  by  the  Dukes 
of  Berry,  Orleans,  Burgundy,  and  Bourbon.  The  council, 
indeed,  on  this  occasion  were  divided.  The  Duke  of  Orleans, 
the  university  of  Toulouse,  and  the  bishops  of  Tours  and  Le 
Puy,  were  against  subtraction.  The  majority,  however,  recom- 
mended the  proposed  measure ;  and  a  total  rejection  of  pon- 
tifical authority  was  published.  Benedict's  cardinals,  also, 
except  Boniface  and  Pampeluna,  approved  the  decision  of  the 
French  assembly,  and  advised  the  French  sovereign  to  declare 
the  pontiff*,  from  his  disregard  of  his  oath,  guilty  of  schism  and 
heresy.1 

The  French  nation,  however,  in  1403,  in  the  vacillation  of 
its  councils,  repealed  the  neutrality  and  restored  obedience. 
The  neutrality  had  lasted  five  years,  from  its  commencement 
in  1398.  Its  abrogation  was  chiefly  owing  to  the  agency  and 
cabals  of  the  Duke  of  Orleans,  who  was  opposed,  but  without 
success,  by  the  Dukes  of  Berry  and  Burgundy.  The  cardinals 
also  were  reconciled  to  Benedict,  and  the  re-establishment  of 
his  authority  was  advocated  by  the  universities  of  Orleans, 
Angers,  Montpellier,  and  Toulouse.  The  King,  cajoled  by  the 
artifice  of  Orleans,  ordered  the  recognition  of  obedience.2 

But  this  recognition  was  temporary.  The  French,  remark- 
able for  their  fickleness,  enjoyed,  on  this  occasion,  all  the  charms 
of  variety.  An  assembly  of  the  French  prelacy  declared  again 
in  favour  of  neutrality  ;  and  his  majesty,  in  1408,  commanded 
the  nation  to  disown  the  authority  of  both  Benedict  and  Gre- 
gory. The  example  of  France  was  followed  by  Germany, 
Bohemia,  Hungary,  and  indeed  by  the  majority  of  the  European 
nations.  Benedict,  in  the  mean  time,  issued  a  bull  of  excom- 
munication against  all  who  countenanced  the  neutrality,  whether 
cardinal  or  king,  interdicted  the  nation,  and  absolved  the  sub- 
jects from  the  oath  of  fidelity.  A  copy  of  this  precious  mani- 
festo the  pontiff  transmitted  to  the  king,  who  treated  it  with 
merited  contempt.3 

Benedict  and  Gregory,  in  the  midst  of  these  scenes  of  ani- 
mosity, retired  in  1408  from  Avignon  and  Rome,  to  Arragon 
and  Aquileia,  where,  having  convened  councils,  these  rival 
vice-gods  encountered  each  other,  as  usual,  with  cursing  and 
anathemas.  His  Italian  infallibility,  in  the  synod  of  Aquileia, 
condemned,  as  illegal,  the  election  of  Clement  and  Bei^dict, 
and  sanctioned,  as  canonical,  that  of  Urban,  Bonifacr  and 

1  Du  Pin,  2.  512.     Daniel,  5.  378      Labb.  15.  107<>. 

a  Boss.  2. 100.     Daniel,  5.  405,  406.     Bruy.  3.  620.     Coss.  3.  771. 

»  Daniel,  5.  444.     Giannon.  XXIV.  6-     Cossart,  3.  771. 


GREAT    WESTERN    SCHISM.  89 

Innocent.  He  then  condemned  and  annulled  all  Benedict's 
ordinations  and  promotions.  His  French  infallibility,  in  the 
council  of  Arragon,  reversed  the  picture.  Having  forbidden 
all  obedience,  and  dissolved  all  obligations  to  his  rival,  he 
annulled  his  ordinations  and  promotions.  Gregory  convicted 
Benedict  of  schism,  heresy,  contumacy,  and  perjury.  Benedict 
convicted  Gregory  of  dishonesty,  baseness,  impiety,  abomina- 
Son,  audacity,  temerity,  blasphemy,  schism,  and  heresy.1 

The  perverse  and  unrelenting  obstinacy  of  the  two  pontiffs 
caused  the  desertion  of  their  respective  cardinals.  These, 
weary  of  such  prevarication,  fled  to  the  city  of  Pisa,  to  concert 
some  plan  for  the  extermination  of  the  schism  and  the  restora- 
tion of  unity.  The  convocation  of  a  general  council  appeared 
the  only  remedy.  The  Italian  and  French  cardinals,  therefore, 
now  united,  wrote  circular  letters  to  the  kings  and  prelacy  of 
Christendom,  summoning  an  oecumenical  assembly,  for  the 
extirpation  of  division  and  the  establishment  of  union.2 

The  Pisan  council,  in  1409,  unable  to  ascertain  whether 
(rregory  or  Benedict  was  the  canonical  head  of  the  church, 
proceeded  by  deposition  and  election.  The  holy  fathers,  inca- 
pable of  determining  the  right  or  title,  used  says  Maimbourg, 
4  not  their  knowledge  but  their  power  ;'  and  having  dismissed 
Gregory  and  Benedict,  appointed  Alexander.  Gregory  and 
Benedict  were  summoned  to  appear,  and,  on  refusal,  were,  in 
the  third  session,  convicted  of  contumacy.  The  Pisans,  repre- 
senting the  universal  church,  and  vested  with  supreme  authority, 
proceeded  without  ceremony,  in  the  nineteenth  session,  to  the 
work  of  degradation.3  Their  definitive  sentence  against  the 
French  and  Italian  viceroys  of  heaven  is  a  curiosity,  and 
worthy  of  eternal  remembrance. 

The  Pisans  began  with  characterizing  themselves  as  holy 
and  general,  representing  the  universal  church ;  and  then  de- 
clared his  French  and  Italian  holiness  guilty  of  schism,  heresy, 
error,  perjury,  incorrigibleness,  contumacy,  pertinacity,  iniquity, 
violation  of  vows,  scandalization  of  the  holy,  universal  church 
of  God,  and  unworthy  of  all  power  and  dignity.  The  charac- 
ter of  these  plenipotentiaries  of  heaven,  if  not  very  good,  is 
certainly  pretty  extensive.  The  sacred  synod  then  deprived 
Gregory  and  Benedict  of  the  papacy,  and  forbade  all  Christians, 
on  pain  of  excommunication,  notwithstanding  any  oath  of  fidelity, 
to  obey  tne  ex-pontiffs,  or  lend  them  counsel  or  favour.4 

The  papacy  being  vacated  by  the  sentence  of  depc^itwn,  tha 

1  Cossart,  3.  381,  382.     Du  Piu.  2.  6.     Labb.  15.  1107. 

2  Giium.  XXIV.  6.     Bruy.  3.  655.     Du  Pin.  2.  515. 

3  Labb.  15.  }123,  1229.     Du  Pin.  3.  3,  5. 

«  Dachery  1.  847.     Bruy.  3.  671.     Labb.  15.  1J31,  1139. 


90  THE    VARIATIONS   OF    POPERY: 

next  step  was  to  elect  a  supreme  pontiff.  This  task,  the  coun- 
cil, in  the  nineteenth  session,  performed  by  the  French  and 
Italian  cardinals,  formed  into  one  sacred  college.  The  conclave, 
with  cordial  unanimity,  elected  the  Cardinal  of  Milan,  who 
assumed  the  appellation  of  Alexander  the  Fifth.  He  presided 
in  the  ensuing  session,  and  ratified  the  acts  of  the  cardinals  and 
general  council. 

The  Pisan  council,  however,  notwithstanding  its  alleged  uni- 
versality, did  not  extinguish  the  schism.  The  decision  of  the 
synod,  and  election  of  the  conclave  only  furnished  a  third 
claimant  for  the  pontifical  chair.  The  universality  and  authority 
ot  the  Pisan  assembly  were,  by  many,  rejected  ;  and  Christen- 
dom was  divided  between  Gregory,  Benedict,  and  Alexander. 
Gregory  was  obeyed  by  Germany,  Naples,  and  Hungary ; 
while  Benedict  was  recognized  by  Scotland,  Spain,  Armagnac. 
and  Foix.  Alexander  was  acknowledged,  as  supreme  spiritual 
director,  by  the  other  European  nations.  The  schism,  there- 
fore, still  continued.  The  Latin  communion  was  divided 
between  three  ecclesiastical  chiefs,  who  continued  to  distract 
the  western  church.  The  inefficiency  of  the  Pisan  attempt 
required  the  convocation  of  another  general  council,  whose 
energy  might  be  better  directed  and  more  successful.1  This 
remedy  was,  in  1414,  supplied  by  the  assembly  of  Constance. 

The  Constantian  council,  like  the  Pisan,  proceeded  by  depo- 
sition and  election ;  and  confessed,  in  consequence,  like  its 
predecessor,  its  inability  to  discriminate  between  the  compara- 
tive right  and  claims  of  the  two  competitors.  John  the  Twenty- 
third  Had  succeeded  to  Alexander  the  Fifth.  The  rival  pontiffs 
were,  at  that  time,  Gregory,  Benedict,  and  John.  Gregory 
and  Benedict,  though  obeyed  by  Scotland,  Spain,  Hungary, 
Naples,  and  Germany,  were  under  the  sentence  of  synodical 
deposition.  John,  on  the  contrary,  was  recognized,  even  by 
the  Constantian  council,  as  the  lawful  ecclesiastical  sovereign 
of  Christendom. 

The  Constantians,  though  they  admitted  the  legitimacy  of 
John's  election,  and  the  legality  of  his  title,  required  him  to 
resign  for  the  good  of  the  church  and  the  extinction  of  schism. 
The  pontiff,  knowing  the  power  and  resolution  of  the  council, 
professed  compliance ;  and,  in  the  second  session,  confirmed 
his  declaration,  in  case  of  Gregory's  and  Benedict's  cession, 
with  an  oath.  This  obligation,  however,  he  endeavored  to 
evade.  Degradation  from  his  ecclesiastical  elevation  presented 
a  dreadful  mortification  to  his  ambition,  and  he  fled,  in  conse- 
quence, from  Constance,  with  the  fond,  but  disappointed 

*  Giannon,  XXIV.  6.     Labb.  16.  495.     Bruy.  4.  7.     Bossuet,  2.  101. 


GREAT    WESTERN     SCHISM.  91 

expectation  of  escaping  his  destiny.  Gregory  and  Benedict 
were  also  guilty  of  violating  their  oath.1  The  church,  there- 
fore, at  this  time,  had  three  perjured  heads,  and  the  Messiah 
three  perjured  vicars-general. 

The  council,  seeing  no  other  alternative,  resolved  to  depose 
John  for  immorality.  The  character,  indeed,  of  this  plenipo- 
tentiary of  heaven  was  a  stain  on  reason,  a  blot  on  Christianity, 
and  a  disgrace  to  man.  The  sacred  synod,  in  the  twelfth  ses- 
sion, convicted  his  holiness  of  schism,  heresy,  incorrigibleness, 
simony,  impiety,  immodesty,  unchastity,  fornication,  adultery, 
incest,  sodomy,  rape,  piracy,  lying,  robbery,  murder,  perjury, 
and  infidelity.  The  holy  fathers  then  pronounced  sentence  of 
deposition,  and  absolved  the  faithful  from  their  oath  of  fealty.2 

Gregory,  seeing  the  necessity,  abdicated.  His  infallibility, 
in  defiance  of  his  oath,  and  though  deposed  by  the  Pisan  coun-  . 
cil,  had  retained  the  pontifical  dignity  ;  but  was  in  the  end,  and 
in  old  age,  forced  to  make  this  concession.  Malatesta,  Lord 
of  Rimini,  in  Gregory's  name  renounced  the  papacy,  with  all 
its  honours  and  dignity. 

John  and  Gregory,  notwithstanding  their  frightful  character, 
as  sketched  by  the  Pisan  and  Constantian  synods,  were  raised 
to  the  Cardinal  dignity.  The  two  councils  had  blazoned  their 
immorality  in  strong  and  appalling  colours,  and  pronounced 
both  unworthy  of  any  dignity.  Martin,  however,  promoted 
John  to  the  cardinalship.  The  Constantian  fathers,  in  the 
seventeenth  session,  and  in  the  true  spirit  of  inconsistency, 
placed  Gregory  next  to  the  Roman  pontiff',  and  advanced  him 
to  the  episcopal,  legatine,  and  cardinal  dignity,  with  all  its 
emoluments  and  authority.  Benedict,  though  importuned  by 
the  council  of  Constance  and  the  king  of  the  Romans  to  resign, 
resolved  to  retain  the  pontifical  dignity,  and  retired,  with  this 
determination,  to  Paniscola,  a  strong  castle  on  the  sea-coast  of 
Valentia.  The  old  dotard,  however,  was  deserted  by  all  the 
European  states  ;  but,  till  his  death,  continued,  twice  a  day, 
to  excommunicate  the  rebel  nations  that  had  abandoned  his 
righteous  cause.  The  council,  in  the  mean  time,  pronounced 
his  sentence  of  deposition,  and  convicted  him  of  schism,  heresy, 
error,  pertinacity,  incorrigibility,  and  perjury,  and  declared  him 
unworthy  of  all  rank  or  title.3  Martin  was  raised  to  the  pa- 
pacy ;  and  his  elevation  terminated  a  schism,  which,  for  half  a 
century,  had  divided  and  demoralized  the  nations  of  Western 
Christendom. 

The  pontifical  succession,  it  is  clear,  was,  during  this  schism, 

»  Labb.  16.  142,  148      Du  Pin,  3.  10. 

8  Labb.  16.  178,  222.     Coss.  4.  90,  110.     Du  Pin.  3.  14. 

>  Labb.  16.  277,  681,  715,     Cossart,  3.  881.  et  4.  81.     Du  Pin.  3.  15,  19. 


92  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

interrupted.  The  links  of  the  chain  were  lost,  or  so  confused, 
that  human  ingenuity  can  never  find  their  place,  nor  human 
penetration  discover  their  arrangement.  Their  disentanglement 
may  defy  all  the  art  of  man  and  all  the  sophistry  of  Jesuitism. 
The  election  of  Urban  or  Clement  must  have  been  uncarionical, 
and  his  papacy  unlawful :  and  the  successors  of  the  unlawful 
pontiff  must  have  shared  in  his  illegality.  Clement  and  Bene- 
dict commanded  the  obedience  of  nearly  the  half  of  Western 
Christendom ;  while  the  remainder  obeyed  Urban,  Boniface, 
Innocent,  and  Gregory.  One  division  must  have  recognized 
the  authority  of  a  usurper  and  an  impostor. 

The  church  dispersed  could  not  ascertain  the  true  vicar- 
general  of  Jesus,  and  hence  its  divisions.  All  the  erudition  of 
the  Parisian  university  and  the  Spanish  nation  was  unavailing. 
The  French  and  Spanish  doctors,  in  the  assemblies  of  Paris 
and  Medina,  in  1381,  examined  the  several  claims  of  the  com- 
petitors with  erudition  and  ability.  The  question  was  treated 
by  the  canonists  and  theologians  of  Spain,  France,  and  Italy, 
with  freedom  and  impartiality.  But  Spanish,  French,  and 
Italian  ingenuity  on  this  subject  was  useless.  The  Pisan  and 
Constantian  councils,  in  all  their  holiness  and  infallibility,  were, 
says  Daniel,  equally  nonplused.  These,  notwithstanding  their 
pretensions  to  divine  direction,  could  depose,  but  could  not 
discriminate  ;  and  were  forced  to  use,  not  their  information  or 
wisdom,  but  their  power  and  authority.1  The  inspired  fathers 
could,  in  their  own  opinion,  depose  all  the  claimants,  but  could 
not  ascertain  the  right  or  title  of  any.  This  conduct  was  a 
plain  confession  of  their  inability  to  discover  the  canonical  head 
of  the  church  and  vicar-general  of  God.  Moderns,  in  this  part 
of  ecclesiastical  history,  are  at  an  equal  loss  with  the  cotem- 
porary  authors  and  councils. 

The  impracticability  of  ascertaining  the  rightful  pontiff  has 
been  admitted  by  the  ablest  critics  and  theologians  of  Romanism, 
such  as  Gerson,  Antoninus,  Bellarmine,  Andilly,  Maimbourg, 
Alexander,  Mezeray,  Daniel,  and  Moreri.2  Gerson  admits 

1  Alexander,  24.  466,  467.     Daniel,  5.  227. 

2  Est  varietas   opinionum  Doctornm,  et  inter  doctissimos  et  probatissimos  ex 
utraque  parte.     Gerson,  in  Alex.  24.  474.     Peritissimos  viros  in  sacra  pagina  et 
jure  canonico  habuit  uti'aque  pars,  ac  etiam  religiossimos  viros,  et  etiam  miraculis 
iiilgentes:  nee  unquam  sic  potuit  quaestio  ilia  decidi.     Antonin.  c.  II,     Alex.  24. 
477.     Nee  poterit  facile  praedicari  quis  eormn  verus  et  legitimus  esset  Pontifex, 
cam  non  decessent  singulis  doctissimi  patroni.  Bell.  IV.  14.  L'affaire  etant  obscure 
et  difficile  d'elle  m6me,  n'a  point  encore  etc  decidee.     Andilly,  860.     Pour  cette 
impossibilite  morale,  ou  1'on  etoit  demeler  les  vrais  Papes  d'avec  les  Anti-Papes. 
Maimb.  I.     Bray.  3.  515.     Adeo  obscura  erant  et  dubia  contendentium  jura,  ut 
post  multas  virorum    doctissimorum  dissertations  plurimosque  tractatus  editos, 
cognosci  non  posset  quis  esset  verus  et  legitimus  Pontifex.     Alex.  24.  444.    On  n'a 
jamais  pft  vuider  ce  demelc.     Mez.  3.  235.     De  trea  savans  horames,  et  des  saintg 


GREAT    WESTERN     SCHISM.  93 

the  reasonableness  of  doubt,  and  the  variety  of  opinions  among 
the  most  learned  and  approved  doctors  on  the  several  claims 
of  the  rival  pontiffs.'  Antoninus  acknowledges  '  the  unsettled 
state  of  the  controversy,  notwithstanding  each  party's  shining 
mirac.es,  and  the  advocacy  of  pious  men,  deeply  skilled  in 
Sacred  Writ  and  in  canon  law.'  Bellarmine  mentions  *  the 
learned  patrons  which  supported  the  several  competitors,  and 
the  difficulty  of  determining  the  true  and  lawful  pontiff.' 
Andilly  agrees  with  Gerson,  Antoninus,  and  Bellarmine.  He 
grants  *  the  obscurity  and  difficulty  of  the  question,  which  has 
not  yet  been  decided.'  Maimbourg,  on  the  Western  schism, 
states  '  the  moral  impossibility  of  ascertaining  the  rightful  pope, 
and  relates  the  support  which  each  faction  received  from 
civilians,  theologians,  and  universities,  and  even  from  saints, 
and  miracles.'  Alexander,  after  an  impartial  and  profound  ex- 
amination, comes  to  the  same  conclusion.  He  shows  the  im- 
practicability of  ascertaining  the  true  and  legitimate  pontiff', 
'notwithstanding  the  dissertations  and  books  published  on  the 
subject  by  the  most  learned  men.'  Each  party,  in  the  state- 
ment of  Mezeray,  '  had  the  advocacy  of  distinguished  person- 
ages, saints,  revelations,  and  miracles ;  and  all  these  could  not 
decide  the  contest.'  Daniel  and  Moreri  confess,  on  this  topic, 
'  the  jarring  and  contradictory  opinion  of  saints,  as  well  as  of 
lawyers,  theologians,  and  doctors,  and  the  unwillingness  or  in- 
ability of  the  church,  assembled  afterwards  in  the  council  of 
Constance,  to  discriminate  among  the  several  competitors  the 
true  vicar-general  of  God  and  ecclesiastical  sovereign  of 
Christendom.'  Similar  concessions  have  been  made  by 
Giannon,  Bruys,  Panormitan,  Balusius,  Zabarella,  Surius, 
Turrecrema,  and  a  long  train  of  other  divines  and  critics. 

The  Basilian  and  Florentine  schism,  which  was  the  thirtieth 
in  the  papacy,  troubled  the  spiritual  reign  of  Eugenius  and 
Felix.  This  contest  presented  the  edifying  spectacle  of  two 
popes  clothed  in  supremacy,  and  two  councils  vested  with  in- 
fallibility, hurling  mutual  anathemas  and  excommunications. 
Martin,  who  had  been  chosen  by  the  Constantian  Convention, 
had  departed,  and  been  succeeded  by  Condalmerio,  who  as- 
sumed the  name  of  Eugenius,  The  council  of  Basil  deposed 
Eugenius  and  substitited  Felix.  Eugenius  assembled  the 


meme  furent  partages  la  dessus.  L*  eglise  assemble,  dans  le  concile  de  Constance, 
ne  voultit  point  1'examiner.  Daniel,  5.  227.  Le  droit  des  deux  partis  ne  f  tit 
jamais  bien  6clairci,  et  il  y  a  en  des  deux  cot6s  de  tres  savans  jurisconsultes,  de 
celebres  theologians,  et  de  grands  Docteurs.  Mpreri.  7.  172.  Les  deux  pape« 
avoient  chacun  des  partisans  illustres  par  leur  science  et  par  leur  pi fte.  Moreri, 


94  THE    VARIATIONS   OF    POPERY: 

council  of  Florence,  and  excommunicated  Felix  and  the 
council  of  Basil. 

The  council  of  Basil  met  anno  1431.  The  holy  fathers,  in 
the  second  session,  decreed  the  superiority  of  a  general  council 
to  a  pope,  and  the  obligation  of  all,  even  the  Roman  pontiff, 
under  pain  of  condign  punishment,  to  obey  the  synodal 
authority  in  questions  of  faith,  extirpation  of  schism,  and  re- 
formation of  the  church. 

The  idea  of  synodal  superiority  and  moral  reformation  con- 
veyed horror,  in  general,  to  all  popes,  and  in  particular  to 
Eugenius.  His  holiness,  in  consequence,  issued  against  the 
council  two  bulls  of  dissolution,  and  annulled  all  its  enactments. 
The  bulls,  however,  contained  no  terror  for  the  council.  The 
Basilians,  supported  by  the  Emperor  Sigismond,  entreated 
Eugenius  to  repeal  his  proclamations  ;  and  threatened,  in  case 
of  refusal,  to  pronounce  his  holiness  guilty  of  contumacy. 
The  pontiff,  therefore,  was  under  the  direful  necessity  of  re- 
voking his  bulls  of  dissolution,  and  declaring  the  legality  of  the 
council;  and,  at  the  same  time,  its  title,  in  its  commencement 
and  continuation,  to  his  approbation.1 

His  infallibility's  approbation,  however,  which  was  extorted, 
was  soon  recalled.  New  dissensions  arose  between  the  pope 
and  the  council.  The  reformation,  which  the  Basilians  had 
effected  and  which  they  still  contemplated,  was,  to  this  head 
of  the  church,  altogether  intolerable.  His  holiness,  therefore, 
in  1438,  translated  the  council  to  Ferrara,  with  the  immediate 
intention  to  gainsay  the  Basilian  assembly.  The  Basilians,  in 
return,  accused  Eugenius  of  simony,  perjury,  abuse  of  authori- 
ty, wasting  the  ecclesiastical  patrimony,  ruining  the  city  of 
Palestrina,  and  hostility  to  their  enactments.  The  Fathers  then 
annulled  the  translation  of  the  council  to  Ferrara,  cited  his 
holiness  to  appear  at  Basil  in  sixty  days,  and  on  his  refusal, 
pronounced  Him  guilty  of  contumacy.2 

Sentence  of  contumacy  was  only  a  prelude  to  sentence  of 
deposition.  Eugenius  proceeded  in  hostility  to  the  Basilians, 
who,  therefore,  by  a  formal  enactment  in  1439,  deprived  him 
of  the  papacy.  The  sentence  against  God's  vicar-general  by 
the  church's  representatives  is  a  curiosity.  The  general  council, 
representing  the  universal  church,  in  its  thirty-fourth  session, 
found  this  plenipotentiary  of  heaven  guilty  of  contumacy,  per- 
tinacity, disobedience,  simony,  incorrigibility,  perjury,  schism, 
heresy,  and  error  ;  and,  in  consequence,  unworthy  of  all  title, 
rank,  honor,  and  dignity.  The  sacred  Synod  then  deposed 

1  Labb.  17.  236.     Bruy.  4.  104,  105.     Du  Pin,  3.  22,  24. 
'  Alex.  23.  39.     Bruy.  4.  115.     Du  Pin,  3.  27. 


BASILIAN    AND    FLORENTINE    SCHISM.  95 

Condalmerio  from  the  papacy,  abrogated  all  his  constitutions 
and  ordinations,  absolved  the  faithful  from  their  obedience, 
oaths,  obligations,  and  fidelity ;  and  prohibited  the  obedience 
of  all,  even  bishops,  patriarchs,  cardinals,  emperors  and  kings, 
under  privation  of  all  honour  and  possessions.1 

The  Basilians,  having  cashiered  one  vice-god,  appointed 
another.  The  person  selected  for  this  dignity  was  Arnadeus, 
duke  of  Savoy.  This  prince  had  governed  his  hereditary 
realms  for  forty  years.  The  ability  which,  during  this  revolving 
period,  he  had*  displayed,  rendered  him  the  delight  of  his  peo- 
ple, and  the  admiration  of  the  age.  He  was  accounted  a 
Solomon  for  wisdom,  and  made  arbiter  of  differences  among 
kings,  who  consulted  him  on  the  most  important  affairs.  He 
possessed  a  philosophical  cast  of  mind,  a  love  of  repose,  and 
a  contempt  for  worldly  grandeur.  Weary  of  a  throne,  which, 
to  so  many,  is  the  object  of  ambition,  and  disgusted  probably 
with  the  bustle  and  tumult  of  life,  Amadeus  resigned  the  ducal 
administration  to  his  sons,  and  resolved  to  embrace  the  seclusion 
of  a  hermit.  He  chose  for  the  place  of  his  retreat  the  beautiful 
villa  of  Ripaille,  on  the  banks  of  the  lake  of  Geneva.  This 
solitude  possessed  the  advantage  of  air,  water,  wood,  meadow, 
vineyards,  and  all  that  could  contribute  to  rural  beauty.  Ama- 
deus, in  this  sequestered  spot,  built  a  hermitage  and  enclosed 
a  park,  which  he  supplied  with  deer.  Accompanied  in  his 
retreat  by  a  few  domestics,  and  supporting  his  aged  limbs  on 
a  crooked  and  knotty  staff,  he  spent  his  days  far  from  the  noise 
and  busy  scenes  of  the  world,  in  innocence  and  piety.  A  de- 
putation arrived  at  this  retirement,  conveying  the  triple  crown 
and  other  trappings  of  the  papacy.  The  ducal  hermit  accepted, 
with  reluctance  and  tears,  and  after  much  entreaty,  the  insignia 
of  power  and  authority.  Western  Christendom,  amidst  the 
unity  of  Romanism,  had  then  two  universal  bishops,  and  two 
universal  councils.2  Eugenius  and  Felix,  with  the  Florentine 
and  Basilian  synods,  divided  the  Latin  communion,  except  a 
few  states  which  assumed  an  attitude  of  neutrality. 

The  two  rival  pontiffs  and  councils  soon  began  the  work  of 
mutual  excommunication.  Eugenius  hailed  Felix,  on  his  pro- 
motion to  the  pontifical  throne,  with  imprecation  and  obloquy. 
He  welcomed  his  brother,  says  Poggio  his  secretary,  to  his  new 
dignity  with  the  appellations  of  Mahomet,  heretic,  schismatic, 
antipope,  Cerberus,  the  golden  calf,  the  abomination  of  deso- 
lation erected  in  the  temple  of  God,  a  monster  that  had  risen 
to  trouble  the  church  and  destroy  the  faith,  and  who,  willing 

1  Bruy.  4.  126.     Du  Pin,  3.  39.     Dan.  6,  167.     Boss.  2.  167. 

«  Labb.  17.  395.     Dan.  6.  168.     Boss.  2.  177.     Alex.  2-5.  540.     Sylv.  c   XLII1, 


96  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

not  merely  to  overthrow  a  single  state  but  unhinge  the  whole 
universe,  had  resigned  humanity,  assumed  the  manners  of  a 
wild  beast,  and  crowned  the  iniquity  of  his  past  life  by  the 
most  frightful  impiety.1  His  infallibility,  among  other  accom- 
plishments, discovered  in  this  salutation  a  superior  genius  for 
elegance  of  diction  and  delicacy  of  sentiment.  Luther,  so 
celebrated  for  this  talent  in  his  answers  to  Leo  and  Henry,  the 
Roman  pontiff  and  the  English  king,  was  in  this  refinement, 
when  compared  with  his  holiness,  a  mere  ninny. 

Eugenius  congratulated  the  council  of  Basil  with  similar 
compliments  and  benedictions.  This  assembly  he  called  block- 
heads, fools,  madmen,  barbarians,  wild  beasts,  malignants, 
wretches,  persecutors,  miscreants,  schismatics,  heretics,  vaga- 
bonds, runagates,  apostates,  rebels,  monsters,  criminals,  a  con- 
spiracy, an  innovation,  a  deformity,  a  conventicle  distinguished 
only  for  its  temerity,  sacrilege,  audacity,  machinations,  impiety, 
tyranny,  ignorance,  irregularity,  fury,  madness,  and  the  dis- 
semination of  falsehood,  error,  scandal,  poison,  pestilence,  deso- 
lation, unrighteousness,  and  iniquity.2 

Having  sketched  the  character  of  the  holy  fathers  with  so 
much  precision,  his  infallibility  proceeded  next,  with  equal  pro- 
fessional skill,  to  annul  their  acts,  and  pronounce  their  sentence. 
This  duty  he  performed  in  fine  style  in  the  council  of  Florence 
and  with  its  full  approbation.  He  condemned  the  Basilian 
proposition  respecting  the  superiority  of  a  council  to  a  pope, 
and  rescinded  all  the  Basilian  declarations  and  enactments. 
Their  doom,  pronounced  by  the  pontiff  in  full  council,  soon 
followed.  His  infallibility,  the  viceroy  of  heaven,  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  pastoral  duty,  and  actuated  with  zeal  for  God, 
and  to  expel  a  pernicious  pestilence  and  an  accursed  impiety 
from  the  church,  despoiled  the  Basilian  doctors,  bishops,  arch- 
bishops, and  cardinals  of  all  honour,  office,  benefice,  and  dig- 
nity ;  excommunicated  and  anathematized  the  whole  assembly, 
with  their  patrons  and  adherents  of  every  rank  and  condition, 
civil  and  ecclesiastical,  and  consigned  that  *  gang  of  all  the 
devils  in  the  universe,  by  wholesale,  to  receive  their  portion  in 
condign  punishment  and  in  eternal  judgment  with  Korah,  Da- 
than,  and  Abiram.'3  The  pontifical  and  synodical  denuncia- 
tions extended  to  the  Basilian  magistracy,  consuls,  sheriffs, 
governors,  officials,  and  citizens.  These,  if  they  failed  in  thirty 

i  Bniy.  4.  130.     Coss.  5.  232.     Labb.  18.  841,  914,  1394.     Poggio.  101,  155. 

«  Labb.  18.  914.  1202—1335.     Poggio.  156. 

3  Affirmat  totius  orbis  daemonia  ad  Latrocinium  Basileense  confluxisee,  ut,  ad 
complendnm  imquitatem,  abominationem  desolationis  in  Dei  ecclesia  ponunt. 
Peclarat  omnes  qui  Basilic  remanserint,  cum  Core,  Dataa  et  Abiron,  it-term 
fudicio  ease  perdendos.  Labb.  13.  1884. 


BASILIAN    AND    FLORENTINE    SCHISM.  9? 

days  to  expel  the  council  from  the  city,  Eugenius  subjected  to 
interdict  and  confiscation  of  goods.  Their  forfeited  property 
might,  by  pontifical  authority,  be  seized  by  the  faithful  or  by 
any  person  who  could  take  possession.  This  edifying  sentence 
his  infallibility  pronounced  in  the  plenitude  of  apostolic  power, 
and  subjected  all  who  should  attempt  any  infringement  on  his 
declaration,  constitution,  condemnation,  and  reprobation,  to  the 
indignation  of  Almighty  God  and  of  the  blessed  apostles  Peter 
and  Paul.1  This  was  the  act  of  the  general,  apostolic,  holy, 
Florentine  council,  and  issued  with  due  solemnity  in  a  public 
synodal  session. 

Nicholas  the  Fifth,  who  succeeded  Eugenius,  continued,  on 
his  accession,  to  follow  his  predecessor's  footsteps,  and  con- 
firmed his  sentence  against  Amadeus  of  Savoy  and  the  council 
of  Basil.  Nicholas  denominated  Eugenius  the  supreme  head 
of  the  church  and  vicar-general  of  Jesus.  But  Felix,  whom 
he  excommunicated  with  all  his  adherents,  he  designated  the 
patron  of  schism,  heresy,  and  iniquity.  The  dukedom  of  Savoy, 
his  holiness,  by  apostolic  authority,  transferred  to  Charles  the 
French  king,  to  bring  the  population  back  to  the  sheepfold. 
This  plenipotentiary  of  heaven  then  proclaimed  a  crusade 
against  the  duke  and  his  subjects.  He  admonished  the  French 
king  to  assume  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  to  act  in  this  enter- 
prize  with  energy.  He  exhorted  the  faithful  to  join  the  French 
army  ;  and  for  their  encouragement,  his  holiness,  supported  by 
the  mercy  of  the  Omnipotent  God,  and  the  authority  of  the 
blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  granted  the  crusading  army  a 
full  pardon  of  all  their  sins,  and,  at  the  resurrection  of  the  just, 
the  enjoyment  of  eternal  life.2 

Felix  and  the  Basilians,  however,  did  not  take  all  this  kind- 
ness for  nothing.  The  holy  fathers,  with  their  pontiff  at  their 
head,  returned  the  Florentine  benedictions  with  spirit  and  piety. 
Their  spiritual  artillery  hurled  back  the  imprecations,  and  re- 
paid their  competitor's  anathemas.  The  Basilians,  with  devout 
cordiality,  nullified  the  Florentine  council,  and  rescinded  all  its 
acts.3  The  Basilian  congress  indeed  cursed,  as  usual,  in  a 
masterly  style.  But  Felix,  through  some  defect  of  intellect  or 
education,  was  miserably  defective  in  this  pontifical  accom- 
plishment. His  genius,  in  the  noble  art  of  launching  execra- 
tions, was  far  inferior  to  that  of  Eugenius  and  Nicholas,  who, 
from  nature  or  cultivation,  possessed  splendid  talents  for  the 
papal  duty  of  cursing.  He  did  well  afterwards  to  resign  the 

1  Du  Pin,  3.  28.     Bruy.  4.  130.     Labb.  18.  915,  1205—1384. 
»  Labb.  19.  47.     Cosa.  5.  261. 
»  Labb.  18.  1365.     Bruy.  4.  130.     Du  Pin.  3.  42. 

7 


98  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

office,  for  which  his  inability  for  clothing  imprecations  in  suit- 
able language  rendered  him  unfit.  The  council  were  to  blame 
for  choosing  a  head,  who,  in  this  capacity,  showed  such  woful 
inadequacy.  Few  of  these  vice-gods,  however,  for  the  honour 
of  the  holy  See,  were  incompetent  in  this  useful  attainment. 
Felix,  in  latter  days,  seems  to  have  been  the  only  one,  who,  in 
this  respect,  disgraced  his  dignity. 

The  schism  in  the  prelacy  and  popedom  communicated  to 
the  nations.  These  were  divided  into  three  fractions,  according 
to  their  declaration  for  Eugenius,  Felix,  or  neutrality.  The 
two  popes  and  synods,  though  branded  with  mutual  excom- 
munication, had  their  several  obediences  among  the  people. 
The  majority  of  the  European  kingdoms  declared  for  Eugenius. 
He  was  patronized  by  Italy,  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Scotland. 
France  and  England  acknowledged  the  council  of  Basil ;  and 
yet,  in  sheer  inconsistency,  rejected  Felix  and  adhered  to  Eu- 
genius. Scotland,  except  a  few  lords,  not  only  declared  for 
Eugenius,  but  its  prelacy,  assembled  in  a  national  council,  ex- 
communicated Felix.  Arragon,  through  interested  motives, 
declared  in  1441  for  Felix,  and  afterwards,  in  1443,  veered 
round  to  Eugenius.1 

Felix,  however,  commanded  a  respectable  minority.  He 
was  recognized  by  Switzerland,  Hungary,  Austria,  Bavaria, 
Strasburgh,  Calabria,  Piedmont,  and  Savoy.  His  authority 
was  acknowledged  by  many  universities  of  France,  Germany, 
and  Poland  ;  such  as  those  of  Paris,  Vienna,  Erfurt,  Colonia, 
and  Cracow.  The  Carthusians  and  Franciscans  also  rallied 
round  the  standard  of  Felix.2 

Germany,  forming  a  third  party,  disclaimed  both  the  com- 
petitors, and  maintained,  amid  these  dissentions,  an  armed 
neutrality.  Its  suspension  of  obedience  commenced  in  1438, 
and  lasted  eight  years.  During  this  period,  its  priesthood  and 
people  contrived,  in  some  way  or  other,  to  do  without  a  pope.8 
The  Germans,  on  this  occasion,  anticipated,  on  the  subject  of 
pontifical  authority,  their  revolt  under  Luther,  which  ushered 
in  the  Reformation. 

This  schism,  however,  which  had  distracted  western  Christen- 
dom for  about  ten  years,  terminated  in  1449.  This  was  effected 
by  the  resignation  of  Felix,  at  the  earnest  entreaty  of  kings, 
councils,  and  people.  Amadeus,  unlike  Urban,  Boniface,  Inno- 
cent, Gregory,  Clement,  and  Benedict,  who  were  rivals  in  the 
great  western  schism,  abdicated  with  promptitude  and  facility.4 

«  Labb.  18.  1396.     Daniel,  6.  224.     Cossart,  5.  38. 
»  Labb.  18.  1397,  1398,  1403. 

•Alex.  23.  45.     Labb.  18.  1368  1373.     Platina,  173, 
•  Du  Pin,  3.  43.     Dan.  6.  226. 


BASILIAN    AND    FLORANTINE    SCHISM.  99 

He  had  accepted  the  dignity  with  reluctance,  and  he  renounced 
it  without  regret. 

Prior  to  his  demission,  however,  the  popes  and  the  councils 
of  the  two  obediences  annulled  their  mutual  sentences  of  con- 
demnation. Nicholas,  in  the  plenitude  of  apostolic  power,  and 
in  a  bull  which  he  addressed  to  all  the  faithful,  rescinded,  in 
due  form,  all  the  suspensions,  interdicts,  privations,  and  ana- 
themas, which  had  been  issued  against  Felix  and  the  council 
of  Basil ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  approved  and  confirmed 
all  their  ordinations,  promotions,  elections,  provisions,  collations, 
confirmations,  consecrations,  absolutions,  and  dispensations. 
He  abrogated  all  that  was  said  or  written  against  Felix  and  the 
Basilian  convention.  This  bull  overthrows  the  ultramontan 
system,  which  maintains  the  illegitimacy  of  the  Basilian  synod 
from  the  deposition  of  Eugenius.  Nicholas  confirmed  it  in  the 
amplest  manner.  Felix  then  revoked  all  the  Basilian  pro- 
ceedings against  Eugenius,  Nicholas,  and  the  Florentine  coun- 
cil ;  and,  though  appointed  legate,  vicar,  first  cardinal,  and 
second  to  the  sovereign  pontiff,  retired  again  to  his  retreat  at 
Ripaille,  on  the  banks  of  the  Leman  Lake ;  and  there,  till  his 
death  in  1450,  enjoyed  a  life  of  ease  and  piety.1 

The  Basilian  and  Florentine  schism  presented  an  odd  pros- 
pect of  papal  unity.  Two  popes  and  two  synods  exchanged 
reciprocal  anathemas  ;  and  afterwards,  in  a  short  time,  sanc- 
tioned all  their  several  acts  with  the  broad  seal  of  mutual  appro- 
bation and  authority.  Felix, — whom  Eugenius  had  designated 
Antichrist,  Mahomet,  Cerberus,  a  schismatic,  a  heretic,  the 
golden  calf,  and  the  abomination  of  desolation, — Nicholas,  in 
the  friendliest  style,  and  kindest  manner,  called  chief  cardinal, 
and  dearest  brother.2  The  councilof  Basil,  which  Eugenius  had 
represented  as  an  assembly  of  madmen,  barbarians,  wild  beasts, 
heretics,  miscreants,  monsters,  and  a  pandemonium,  Nicholas, 
without  any  hesitation  and  in  the  amplest  manner,  approved 
and  confirmed.  Two  general  councils  condemned  each  other  for 
schism  and  heresy,  and  afterwards  exchanged  mutual  compli- 
ments and  approbation.  The  French  and  Italian  schools  still 
continue  their  enmity.  The  French  detest  the  Florentine  con- 
vention and  applaud  the  Basilian  assembly ;  whilst  the  Italians 
denounce  the  conventicle  of  Basil  and  eulogize  the  council  of 
Florence. 

The  Basilian  and  Florentine  contest  displays  all  the  elements 
of  discord,  which  distinguish  the  great  western  schism.  Pope, 
i 

1  Labb.  19.  50.     Coss.  5.  247.     Lenfant.  2.  210.     Bruy.  4.  159.     Alex.  23,  53. 

2  Carissimum  fratrem  nostrum  Amadeura,  primum  Cardinalem.     Alex.  25,  258. 
Coss.  5.  274. 

7* 


100  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

in  both,  opposed  pope.  Two  viceroys  of  heaven  clashed  in 
mutual  excommunications.  Western  Christendom,  on  both 
occasions,  was  rent  into  contending  factions.  Nations,  severed 
from  nation,  refused  reciprocal  communion,  and  acknowledged 
two  jarring  ecclesiastical  sovereigns. 

But  the  latter  schism  contained  also  a  new  element  of  dissen- 
sion, unknown  to  the  former.  An  universal  council,  as  a  speci- 
men of  Romish  unity,  opposed  an  universal  council,  and  both 
fulminated  mutual  execrations.  Each  assembly  in  its  own  and 
in  its  party's  opinion,  and,  according  to  many  at  the  present 
day,  represented  the  whole  church ;  and,  nevertheless,  in  the 
bitterest  enmity,  and  in  unequivocal  language,  thundered  re- 
ciprocal sentences  of  heresy  and  reprobation. 

But  doctrinal,  as  well  as  historical  and  electoral  variations, 
troubled  the  papacy,  Historians,  for  a  century,  differed  in 
their  records  of  the  popedom,  while  electors,  in  many  cases,' 
disagreed  in  their  choice  of  a  sovereign.  Several  of  the  pontiffs 
also  varied  from  the  faith  of  the  majority.  Ah1  the  heads  of  the 
church,  who  patronized  heresy,  need  not  be  enumerated.  A 
few  of  the  most  distinguished,  however,  may  be  mentioned  ; 
such  as  Victor,  Stephen,  Zosimus,  Honorius,  Vigilius,  and 
John. 

Victor,  or,  according  to  Bellarmine,  Zephyrinus,  patronized 
Montanism.  His  infallibility  approved  the  prophecies  of  Mon- 
tanus,  Priscilla,  and  Maximilla,  admitted  these  fanatics  to  his 
communion,  and  granted  the  impostors  letters  of  peace  or  re- 
commendation to  the  churches  of  Asia  and  Phrygia.  The 
pontiff,  deceived  by  appearances,  gave  Montanus,  says  Godeau, 
*  pacific  letters,  which  shews  that  he  had  admitted  the  prophet 
to  his  communion.'  According  to  Rhenanus,  '  his  holiness 
Montanized.'  He  sanctioned  the  blasphemy  of  these  enthu- 
siasts by  the  seal  of  his  infallibility.  Montanism,  when  coun- 
tenanced by  the  pontiff,  had  been  condemned  by  the  church. 
Victor's  recommendation  of  the  heresy,  therefore,  was  without 
excuse.  The  pope  afterward  revoked  his  letters  of  peace  ;  and 
in  so  doing,  varied  from  himself,  as  he  had,  in  granting  them, 
differed  from  the  church.  Praxeas,  says  Tertullian,  remon- 
strated against  the  conduct  of  Victor,  who,  in  consequence, 
was  forced  to  recant.1  The  hierarch's  approbation  and  recan- 
tation were  equal  proofs  of  his  infallibility  and  consistency. 

Stephen  erred  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  His  holiness,  fol- 
lowed by  the  Spaniards,  French,  and  Italians,  maintained  the 
validity  of  baptism  administered  by  any  heretical  denomination. 

1  Bell.  IV.  8.     Tertull.  501.     Du  Pin,  346.     Godeau,        436.     Spon.  173.  11 
Bruy.  1.  40. 


VARIATIONS.  101 

His  infallibility's  language,  according  to  Cyprian,  Firmilian, 
and  the  plain  signification  of  the  words,  taught  the  efficacy  of 
the  baptismal  ceremony  in  any  form,  even  without  the  name 
of  the  Trinity.1  The  cotemporary  partizans  of  heresy,  indeed, 
except  the  Novatians,  who  were  out  of  the  question,  rejected 
the  deity  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  in  this  insti- 
tution, omitted  the  names  of  these  two  divine  persons.  Their 
forms,  in  the  celebration  of  this  sacrament,  were,  as  appears 
from  Irenaeus,  distinguished  for  their  ridiculousness  and  absurd- 
ity. Persons,  however,  who  had  been  baptized  in  any  heretical 
communion  did  not,  according  to  Stephen's  system,  need  a 
repetition  of  the  ceremony. 

Cyprian,  the  Carthaginian  metropolitan,  who  led  the  Africans, 
Numidians,  Phrygians,  Cappadocians,  Galatians,  Cilicians, 
Pontians,  and  Egyptians,  held  the  opposite  opinion.  He  main- 
tained  the  invalidity  of  heretical  baptism,  and  rebaptized  all, 
who,  renouncing  any  heresy,  assumed  the  profession  of  Catho- 
licism. Cyprian's  system  was  supported  by  tradition  and 
several  councils,  and  had  obtained  through  Africa  and  Asia. 
The  decisions  of  Stephen  and  Cyprian  are  in  direct  opposition, 
and  both  contrary  to  modern  Catholicism.2 

The  pontiff  and  the  saint  maintained  their  respective  errors 
with  animosity  and  sarcasm.  The  pontiff  called  the  saint  anti- 
christ, a  false  apostle,  and  a  deceitful  workman.  To  a  depu- 
tation sent  on  this  subject  from  Africa  he  refused  admission  into 
his  presence,  or  even  the  rights  of  common  hospitality ;  and 
excommmunicated  both  the  Africans  and  Orientals.  His  inflexi- 
bility was  returned  with  interest  by  Cyprian  and  Firmilian. 
Cyprian  accused  his  holiness  of  error,  apostacy,  schism,  heresy, 
pride,  impertinence,  ignorance,  inconsistency,  indiscretion, 
falsehood,  obstinacy,  presumption,  stupidity,  senselessness, 
perversity,  obduracy,  blasphemy,  impatience,  perfidy,  indocility, 
and  contumacy.3  Such  was  a  Roman  saint's  character  of  a 
Roman  pontiff  and  the  vicar-general  of  God. 

Firmilian' s  portrait  of  his  infallibility  is  unflattering  as  that 
of  Cyprian.  The  prominent  traits  in  Firmilian's  picture  of  his 
holiness  are  inhumanity,  insolence,  audacity,  dissension,  discord, 
folly,  pride,  ridiculousness,  ignorance,  contumacy,  error,  schism, 
and  heresy.  He  even  represented  the  head  of  the  church  as 
an  apostate,  worse  than  all  heretics,  in  supporting  error  and 

1  Cyprian,  210.     Bin.  1.  177.     Euseb.  VII.  2. 

2  Les  Remains  vouloient  qu'il  fftt  bon,  par  quelque  Heretique  qu'il  ftit  confer^ : 
et  lefc  Afriquains  soutenoient,  qu'il  6toit  nul  s'il  etoit  confer^  hors  de  1'figlise,  par 
les  heretiques.    II  n'y  a  rien  de  plus  oppos6,  que  ces  deux  decrets.     Maine  b.  88,  90, 
97.     Du  Pin,  347t.     Cyprian,  Ep.  LXXIV 

3  Cyprian,  2J  0—215. 


102  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

obscuring  the  light  of  ecclesiastical  truth,  who,  in  attempt  uig  tc 
excommunicate  others,  had  separated  himself  from  the  whole 
Christian  community.1  These  two  moral  painters,  between 
them,  certainly  did  great  justice  to  his  infallibility's  character, 
and  sketched  the  features  as  large  as  life. 

Stephen  and  Cyprian,  as  well  as  their  several  factions,  were, 
after  all,  both  in  an  error.  The  validity  of  baptism,  according 
to  the  Romish  system,  depends  not  on  the  administrator,  but 
on  the  matter  and  Ibrm.  The  administrator  may  be  a  heretic 
or  a  schismatic,  a  clergyman,  a  layman,  or  a  woman,  if  the 
element  of  water  and  the  name  of  the  Trinity  be  used.  Cy- 
priari  and  Stephen,  the  saint  and  the  pontiff,  differed  from  one 
another,  and  according  to  the  present  popish  faith,  from  the 
truth.  The  church,  in  the  clashing  systems  of  the  Carthaginian 
metropolitan  and  the  Roman  hierarch,  varied  on  this  topic 
from  the  church  which  has  been  established  since  their  day. 
Cyprian's  opinion,  though  supported  by  Athanasius,  Cyril, 
Dionysius,  Optatus,  arid  Basil,  with  the  Asiatic  and  African 
communions,  was,  in  314,  condemned  by  the  council  of  Aries. 
Stephen's  opinion,  which  supported  the  efficacy  of  any  baptism, 
even  without  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  was,  in  325,  condemned, 
in  the  nineteenth  canon  of  the  general  council  of  Nice.2 

Liberius,  Zosimus,  and  Horiorius  patronized  Arianism, 
Pelagianism,  and  Monothelitism.  Liberius  excommunicated 
Athanasius,  and  signed  an  Arian  confession  of  faith.  Zosimus 
countenanced  Pelagianism,  Honorius  professed  Monothelitism, 
and  was  condemned  for  this  heresy  in  the  sixth  general  council. 
These  three  pontiffs,  however,  will  occur  in  a  future  part  of 
this  work,  when  their  errors  will  be  more  fully  developed. 

Vigilius,  the  next  topic  of  animadversion,  was  the  prince  of 
changelings.  The  celebrated  Vicar  of  Bray  seems  to  have 
been  only  a  copy,  taken  from  the  original — the  notorious  bishop 
of  Rome.  This  pontifical  shuttlecock,  during  his  supremacy, 
shifted  his  ground  no  less  than  six  times.  His  infallibility,  ac- 
cording to  Liberatus,  began  his  popedom  by  issuing  a  declaration 
in  favour  of  Monophysitism.  This  confession  was  intended 
to  satisfy  the  Empress  Theodora,  who  favoured  this  heresy. 
His  holiness  anathematized  the  Chalcedonian  faith  and  its 
patrons,  and  embraced  the  Eutychianism  of  Anthemus,  Severus, 
and  Theodosius.  This  system,  however,  his  infallibility,  in 
the  vicissitudes  of  inconsistency,  soon  retracted,  and  shifted 
round,  like  the  veering  vane,  to  the  definition  of  Chalcedon. 
The  pontiff,  in  539,  in  a  communication  to  the  Emperor 

1  Cyprian,  Ep.  75.     Bruy.  1.  65. 

»  Challenor.  5.     Labb.  1. 1452.  et  2.  42.     Mairnb.  98.  99.    Bin.  1.  20. 


DOCTRINAL    VARIATIONS  103 

Justinian  and  the  patriarch  Mennas,  disclaimed  Eutychianism 
and  excommunicated  all  its  partizans.1 

His  avowal  of  Jacobitism,  indeed,  was  during  the  life  of  his 
rival  Silverius,  when,  instead  of  being  lawful  pastor,  Vigilius, 
according  to  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  and  Godeau,  was  only  an 
illegal  intruder,  who  had  obtained  the  ecclesiastical  sovereignty 
by  violence  and  simony.2  The  usurper,  however,  even  then 
held  the  whole  administration  of  the  papacy  ;  and,  after  the 
death  of  his  competitor,  made  four  different  and  jarring  con- 
fessions of  faith  on  the  subject  of  the  three  chapters,  which 
contained  the  writings  of  Ibas,  Theodoret,  and  Theodorus. 

Vigilius,  in  547,  opposed  Justinian's  edict,  which  condemned 
the  works  of  these  three  authors.3  The  emperor,  in  545,  had 
issued  a  constitution,  in  which  he  anathematized  Ibas,  Theo- 
doret, and  Theodorus,  and  condemned  their  productions,  on 
account  of  their  execrable  heresy  and  blasphemy.  The  impe- 
rial proclamation  was  subscribed  by  Mennas,  Zoilos,  Ephraim, 
and  Peter,  patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch, 
and  Jerusalem  ;  and  by  the  oriental  suffragans,  who  followed 
the  footsteps  of  their  superiors.  His  holiness,  however,  on  his 
arrival  in  the  imperial  city,  in  547,  refused  to  sign  the  imperial 
edict.  He  declared  the  condemnation  of  the  three  chapters 
derogatory  to  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  and,  in  consequence, 
excommunicated  the  Grecian  clergy,  and  anathematized  all  who 
condemned  Ibas,  Theodoret,  and  Theodorus. 

His  infallibility's  hostility  to  the  royal  manifesto,  however, 
was  temporary.  His  holiness,  in  548,  published  a  bull,  which 
he  called  his  judgment,  and  which  condemned,  in  the  strongest 
and  most  express  terms,  the  works  of  Ibas,  Theodoret,  and 
Theodorus.  These  productions,  according  to  this  decision,  con- 
tained many  things  contrary  to  the  right  faith,  and  tending  to 
the  establishment  of  impiety  and  Nestorianism.  Vigilius,  there- 
fore, anathematized  the  publications,  the  authors,  and  their 
abettors.  Alexander  and  Godeau,  on  this  occasion,  acknow- 
ledged the  inconsistency  of  his  infallibility's  judgment  with  his 
former  decision.4  Godeau's  observation  is  worthy  of  remark. 
The  pontiff's  compliance  with  the  emperor,  says  the  historian, 
was  a  prudent  accommodation  to  the  malignity  of  the  times.'5 


1  Liberat.  c.  XXII.     Godeau,  4.  203,  208.     Vigil.  Ep.  IV.  V. 
8  Bell.  IV.  11.     Godeau,  4.  206.     Binn.  4.  400. 

3  Damnation!  primum  obstitit.     Alex.  12  33.     Godeau,  4.  229.     Theoph.  152. 

4  Ilia  postmodum  judicato  damnavit.     Alexand.  12.  33.     Maimb.  67.     Labb.  6 
23,   177. 

C'etoit  un  jugement  contraire  au  premier,  qu'il  avoit  si  fortement  soutenu  contre 
1'Empereur,  et  pontre  les  eveques  Orientaux.     Godeau,  4.  233. 

6  Prudent  accommodement  a  la  malignite  du  temps.     Godeau,  4.  233. 


104  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

The  badness  of  the  times,  in  the  good  bishop's  mind,  justified 
the  Pope's  discretion  and  versatility. 

The  Latin  clergy,  however,  had  a  different  opinion  of  the 
pontifical  judgment.  These,  to  a  man,  forsook  Vigilius  :  Dacius, 
Sebastian,  Rusticus,  and  Facundus,  with  the  Illyrians,  Dal- 
matians, and  Africans,  viewed  the  decision  as  the  subversion  of 
the  Chalcedonian  faith,  and  the  establishment  of  Eutychianism 
on  the  ruins  of  Catholicism.  Facundus  openly  taxed  his  holi- 
ness with  prevarication  and  perfidy.1 

His  infallibility,  ever  changing,  issued,  in  553,  in  a  council 
of  sixteen  bishops  and  three  deacons,  a  constitution  which  over- 
threw his  judgment.  Vigilius,  in  this  constitution,  disapproved 
of  sixty  extracts  from  Theodorus,  in  the  bad  acceptation  in 
which  they  had  been  taken  ;  but  prohibited  the  condemnation 
of  his  person.  He  could  not,  he  said,  by  his  own  sentence, 
condemn  Theodorus  nor  allow  him  to  be  condemned  by  any. 
The  pontiff,  at  the  same  time,  declared  the  Catholicism  of  the 
works,  and  forbade  ah1  anathematizing  of  the  persons  of  Theo- 
doret  and  Ibas.  His  supremacy  ordained  and  decreed,  that 
nothing  should  be  done  or  attempted  to  the  injury  or  detraction 
of  Theodoret,  who  signed,  without  hesitation,  the  Chalcedonian 
definition,  and  consented  with  ready  devotion  to  Leo's  letter. 
He  decided  and  commanded,  that  the  judgment  of  the  Chalce- 
donian fathers,  who  declared  the  orthodoxy  of  Ibas,  should 
remain,  without  addition  or  diminution.  All  this  was  in  direct 
contradiction,  as  the  fifth  general  council  shewed,  to  his  judg- 
ment, in  which  he  had  condemned  the  heresy  of  the  three 
chapters,  and  anathematized  the  persons  of  their  authors  and 
advocates.  This  constitution,  however,  notwithstanding  its  in- 
consistency with  his  former  declaration,  the  pontiff'  sanctioned 
by  his  apostolic  authority,  and  interdicted  all  of  every  ecclesias- 
tical dignity,  from  writing,  speaking,  publishing,  or  teaching 
any  thing  a,gainst  his  pontifical  decision.2 

The  sixth  and  last  detour  of  Vigilius  was  his  confirmation  of 
the  fifth  general  council,  which  condemned  and  anathematized 
Ibas,  Theodoret,  Theodorus,  and  their  works,  for  impiety,  wick- 
edness, blasphemy,  madness,  heresy,  and  Nestorianism.  The 
following  is  a  specimen  of  the  infallible  assembly's  condemna- 
tion of  the  three  chapters  and  their  authors,  which  the  holy 
fathers,  as  usual,  bellowed  in  loud  vociferation.  'Anathema  to 
Theodorus.  Satan  composed  his  confession.  The  Ephesian 
council  anathematized  its  author.  Theodorus  renounced  the 
gospel.  Anathema  to  all  who  do  not  anathematzie  Theodorus, 

1  Godeau,  4.  231.     Bruy.  in  Vigil. 
•  Labb.  5.  1350—1360.     Maimb.  68. 


DOCTRINAL    VARIATIONS.  105 

Theodoret's  works  contain  blasphemy  and  impiety  against  the 
right  faith  and  the  Ephesian  council.  The  epistle  of  Ibas  is,  in 
ah1  things,  contrary  to  the  Chalcedonian  definition  and  the  true 
faith.  The  epistle  contains  heresy.  The  whole  epistle  is  blas- 
phemy. Whosoever  does  not  anathematize  it  is  a  heretic.  Ana- 
thema to  Theodorus,  Nestorius,  and  Ibas.'  All  this,  notwith- 
standing his  constitution  in  behalf  of  Ibas,  Theodoret,  and 
Theodorus,  his  infallibility  approved  and  confirmed.1 

His  holiness  did  not  stop  with  a  simple  confirmation  of  the 
fifth  general  council.  He,  also,  like  the  Ecumenical  Synod, 
vented  a  noisy  torrent  of  obloquy  against  the  departed  souls  of 
Ibas,  Theodoret  and  Theodorus,  when  their  flesh  was  resolved 
into  dust  and  their  bones  were  mouldering  in  the  tomb.  He 
condemned  and  anathematized  Theodoret  and  Theodorus,whose 
works,  according  to  his  infallibility,  contained  impiety  and  many 
things  against  the  right  faith  and  the  Ephesian  council.2  A 
similar  sentence,  he  pronounced  against  Ibas,  his  works,  and  all 
who  believed  or  defended  their  impiety. 

The  papacy  of  Vigilius  presents  a  scene  of  fluctuation  un- 
known in  the  annals  of  Protestantism.  The  vicar-general  of 
God,  the  head  of  the  church,  and  the  father  and  teacher  of  aU 
Christians  shifted  his  ground  six  times.  He  sanctioned  Euty- 
chianism  and  afterwards  retracted.  He  withstood  Justinian's 
edict,  and,  in  his  celebrated  judgment,  afterwards  recanted.  The 
changeling  pontiff',  in  his  constitution,  shielded  Ibas,  Theodoret, 
and  Theodorus,  and  afterwards  confirmed  the  general  council, 
which  condemned  these  authors  for  blasphemy  and  heresy.  His 
infallibility's  condemnation  of  the  three  chapters  was  opposed 
by  the  whole  Latin  communion.  The  Africans,  Illyrians,  Dal- 
matians, and  many  other  churches  withdrew  from  his  commu- 
nion, and  accused  him  of  overthrowing  the  council  of  Chalcedon 
and  establishing  Monophysitism.  A  general  council  of  the 
Grecian  prelacy,  in  the  mean  time,  condemned  the  Pope's 
constitution  and  the  declaration  of  the  Latin  clergy  ;  and  this 
council's  sentence,  amid  the  universal  distraction  of  Christendom, 
was  established  by  Pope  Vigilius,  and  afterwards  by  Pelagius, 
Gregory,  Nicholas,  and  Leo.3 

John  the  twenty-second  was  another  of  these  pontiffs, 
who  was  distinguished  for  patronizing  heresy.  'This  father 
and  teacher  of  all  Christians'  denied  the  admission  of  disem- 
bodied souls  into  the  beatific  vision  of  God,  during  their  inter- 
mediate state  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  The  spirits 
of  the  just,  indeed,  he  believed,  entered  at  death  on  the  enjoy. 

1  Labb.  6.  66,  130,  197,  199,  310.     Godeau,  4.  265,  268. 
3  Labb  6.  241,  244.     Bray.  1.  228. 
3  Godeau,'  4.  233.     Bruy.  1.  327. 


106  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

ment  of  happiness  and  the  contemplation  of  the  Son's  glorified 
numanity.  But  the  vision  of  Jehovah  and  the  perfection  of 
felicity,  according  to  this  head  of  the  church,  are  deferred  till  the 
day  of  general  judgment.1 

This  dogma  his  supremacy  taught  by  sermons,  letters,  and 
legations.  He  preached  the  heresy  in  public,  according  to  Balu- 
sius,  Raynal,  and  Maimbourg,  in  three  sermons  in  succession,  and 
caused  it  to  be  maintained  by  cardinals,  prelates,  and  doctors.2 
He  transmitted  letters  in  all  directions,  especially  through  the 
French  nation,  in  support  of  his  theory.  He  sent  two  theolo- 
gians on  a  mission  to  the  Parisian  faculty,  to  effect  the  pro- 
selytism  of  that  literary  seminary  to  his  system.  John,  says 
Adrian  the  Sixth,  quoted  by  Launoy,  *  publicly  taught  and 
declared  his  innovation,  and  enjoined  its  belief  on  alJ  men.'3 
Nangis  has  transmitted  a  similar  statement.  He  endeavoured, 
in  this  manner,  says  Du  Pin,  'to  spread  his  error,  and  dissemi- 
nate a  universal  heresy  through  the  whole  church.'4 

His  infallibility's  speculation,  however,  soon  met  decided  hos- 
tility. The  citizens  of  Avignon,  indeed,  in  which  John  resided, 
maintained  a  profound  silence.  This,  in  some,  arose  from  fear, 
and,  in  some,  from  favour.  A  few  believed  and  countenanced 
the  innovation.  Many  disbelieved  ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  con- 
cealed their  disapprobation  through  terror  of  the  pontiff's  power 
and  tyranny.  The  king  and  the  Parisian  university,  however, 
were  not  to  be  affrighted.  Philip,  in  1333,  assembled  the 
faculty,  who  canvassed  the  controversy  and  condemned  his 
infallibility's  faith  as  a  falsehood  and  a  heresy.  These  doctors 
defined,  that  the  souls  of  the  faithful  come  at  death,  to  the 
naked,  clear,  beatific,  intuitive,  and  immediate  vision  of  the 
essence  of  the  divine  and  blessed  Trinity.  Many  doctors  con- 
curred with  the  Parisians  in  opposition  to  the  pontiff.  Gobelin 
called  his  infallibility  an  old  dotard.  Alliaco  denominated  John's 
theory  an  error  ;  while  Gerson  characterized  it  as  a  falsehood. 
Philip,  the  French  monarch,  proclaimed  its  condemnation  by 
the  sound  of  a  trumpet.5 

The  statements  and  reasons  of  the  university  and  of  other 
divines  were  unavailing.  His  infallibility  was  proof  against 
Parisian  dialectics.  But  the  French  king  was  an  abler  logician, 
and  his  reasoning,  in  consequence,  possessed  more  efficiency. 

1  Du  Pin,  352.     Alex.  22.  451.     Maimb.  130. 

2  II  1'enseigna  publiquement.  II  la  precha  lui-meme.    II  obligea,  par  son  exemple. 
les  Cardinaux,  les  prelatg  de  sa  cour,  et  les  docteurs,  a  la  soutenir.     Maimb.  131. 

3Publice  docuit,  declaravit,  et  ab  omnibus  teneri  mandavit.     Launoy,  1.  534 
4  Joannes  Papa  XXII.  errorem  de  beatitudine  animse,  quam  ipse  diu  teuuera^ 
publice  praedicaverat.     Nangis,  Ann.  1334.     Dacheiy,  3.  97. 

6  Bruy.  3.  420,  422.     Cossart,  4.  434.     Maimb.  132.     Gobelin,  c.  LXXI. 


MORAL    VARIATIONS.  107 

The  royal  argument,  on  the  occasion,  was  composed  of  fire.  His 
most  Christian  majesty  threatened,  if  the  pontiff  did  not  retract, 
to  roast  his  Supremacy  in  the  flames.1  This  tangible  and  sen- 
sible argument,  always  conclusive  and  convincing,  was  calcu- 
lated for  the  meridian  of  his  infallibility's  intellect.  This 
luminous  application  therefore,  soon  connected  the  premises 
with  the  conclusion,  brightened  John's  ideas,  and  convinced  him, 
in  a  short  time,  of  his  error.  The  clearness  of  the  threatened 
fire  communicated  light  to  his  infallibility's  understanding.  His 
holiness,  though  enamoured  of  heresy,  was  not,  it  appears,  am- 
bitious of  martyrdom.  He  chose  to  retract,  therefore,  rather 
than  be  burned  alive.  His  infallibility,  accordingly, just  before 
he  expired,  read  his  recantation  and  declared  his  orthodoxy, 
on  the  subject  of  the  beatific  vision  and  the  enjoyment  of  the 
deity. 

Bellarmine  and  Labbe  deny  John's  heterodoxy.2  These  en- 
deavour to  excuse  the  pontiff,  but  by  different  means.  Bellar- 
mine grounds  his  vindication  on  the  silence  of  the  church  on  this 
topic,  when  John  published  his  opinion.  No  synodical  or 
authoritative  definition,  declaring  the  soul's  enjoyment  of  the 
beatific  vision  before  the  resurrection,  preceded  the  papal  de- 
cision, which  therefore  was  no  heresy.  Heresy  then  is  no  heresy, 
according  to  the  cardinal,  but  truth,  prior  to  the  sentence  oi 
the  church.  John's  opinion,  Bellarmine  admits,  is  now  hetero- 
doxy ;  but,  on  its  original  promulgation,  was  orthodoxy.  Truth, 
it  seems,  can,  by  an  ecclesiastical  definition,  be  transubstantiated 
into  error,  and  Catholicism  into  heresy,  even  in  an  unchangeable 
church  distinguished  for  its  unity.  The  popish  communion  can 
effect  the  transubstantiation  of  doctrinal  propositions,  as  well 
as  of  the  sacramental  elements.  John's  faith,  says  Labbe, 
was  taught  by  Irenaeus,  Lactantius,  and  other  orthodox  fathers.3 
This  is  a  noble  excuse  indeed,  and  calculated  to  display,  in  a 
strong  light,  the  unity  of  Romanism.  The  faith  of  primitive 
saints  and  orthodox  fathers  is,  it  seems,  become  heresy.  Labbe 
attempts  to  acquit  John  by  arraigning  Irenaeus  and  Lac- 
tantius. The  legitimate  conclusion  from  the  premises  is,  that 
Irenseus,  Lactantius,  and  John,  were  all  three  infected  with  error, 

Moral,  as  weh1  as  historical,  electoral,  and  doctrinal  variations 
diversified  and  disfigured  the  poped om.  Sanctity  characterized 
the  early  Roman  bishops,  and  degeneracy  their  successors. 
Linus,  Anacletus,  Clemens,  and  many  of  a  later  period  were 
distinguished  by  piety,  benevolence,  holiness,  and  humility. 

1  Rex  rogum  ipsi  intentans  ne  revocarit  errorem.     Alex.  22.  461. 
3  Bell.  jl.  780.     Labb.  15.  147.     Alex.  22.  456. 
3  Labb.  15.  147.     Cassant,  4.  437. 


108  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

Some  deviations  and  defects  might  appear,  marking  the  infirmity 
and  the  imperfection  of  man.  The  Roman  pastors,  however, 
who,  during  the  earlier  days  of  Christianity,  did  not,  in  moral 
character,  aspire  to  excellence,  aimed  at  decency ;  and  few,  for 
a  long  series  of  years,  sunk  below  mediocrity. 

But  the  Roman  hierarchs  of  the  middle  and  succeeding  ages 
exhibited  a  melancholy  change.  Their  lives  displayed  all  the 
variations  of  impiety,  malevolence,  inhumanity,  ambition, 
debauchery,  gluttony,  sensuality,  deism,  and  atheism.  Gregory 
the  Great  seems  to  have  led  the  way  in  the  career  of  villainy. 
This  celebrated  pontiff' has  been  characterized  as  worse  than  his 
predecessors  and  better  than  his  successors,  or,  in  other  terms, 
as  the  last  good  and  the  first  bad  pope.  The  flood-gates  of 
moral  pollution  appear,  in  the  tenth  century,  to  have  been  set 
wide  open,  and  inundations  of  all  impurity  poured  on  the  Chris- 
tian world  through  the  channel  of  the  Roman  hierarchy.  Awful 
and  melancholy  indeed  is  the  picture  of  the  popedom  at  this 
era,  drawn,  as  it  has  been,  by  its  warmest  friends ;  such  as 
Platina,  Petavius,  Luitprand,  Genebrard,  Baronius,  Hermann, 
Barclay,  Binius,  Giannone,  Vignier,  Labbe",  and  Du  Pin. 
Platina  calls  these  Pontiffs  monsters.  Fifty  popes,  says  Gene- 
brard, in  150  years,  from  John  the  Eighth  till  Leo  the  Ninth, 
entirely  degenerated  from  the  sanctity  of  their  ancestors,  and 
were  apostatical  rather  than  apostolical.1  Thirty  pontiffs 
resigned  in  the  tenth  century :  and  the  successor,  in  each 
instance,  seemed  demoralized  even  beyond  his  predecessor. 
Baronius,  in  his  Annals  of  the  Tenth  jCentury,  seems  to  labour 
for  language  to  express  the  base  degeneracy  of  the  popes  and 
the  frightful  deformity  of  the  popedom.  Many  shocking  mon- 
sters, says  the  annalist,  intruded  into  the  pontifical  chair,  who 
were  guilty  of  robbery,  assassination,  simony,  dissipation, 
tyranny,  sacrilege,  perjury,  and  all  kinds  of  miscreancy .  Can- 
didates, destitute  of  every  requisite  qualification,  were  promoted 
to  the  papal  chair ;  while  all  the  canons  and  traditions  of  anti- 
quity were  contemned  and  outraged.  The  church,  says  Gian- 
none, was  then  in  a  shocking  disorder,  in  a  chaos  of  iniquity. 
Some  says  Barclay,  crept  into  the  popedom  by  stealth  ;  while 
others  broke  in  by  violence,  and  defiled  the  holy  chair  with  the 
filthiest  immorality.2 

1  Per  annos  fere  150.  Pontifices  circiter  quinquaginta  a  loarme  scilicet  VIII, 
usque  ad  Leonem  IX,  virtute  majorum  prorsus  defecerint,  apostatici  potius  auam 
apostolici,  Geneb.  IV.  Platina,  128.  Du  Pin,  2.  156.  Bruy.  2.  208. 

3  Plurima  horrenda  in  earn  rnonstra  intruserunt.     Spon.  900.  I.  et  908.  III. 

L'eglise  etoi  plongee  dans  un  cahos  d'impietes.  An.  Eccl.  344.  Giannon, 
VII.  5. 

Sanctissimam  Cathedram  moribus  inquinatissimis  foedavisse.  Barclay,  36.  c.  4. 
On  ne  voyoit  alors  des  Papes,  mais  des  monstres.  An.  Eccl.  345.  Giannon,  VII,  5 


PROFLIGACY    OF    JOHN    THE    TWELFTH.  109 

The  electors  and  the  elected,  during  this  period,  appear,  as 
might  be  expected,  to  have  been  kindred  spirits.  The  electors 
were  neither  the  clergy  nor  people,  but  two  courtezans,  Theodora 
and  Marozia,  mother  and  daughter,  women  distinguished  by  their 
beauty,  and  at  the  same  time,  though  of  senatorial  family, 
notorious  for  their  prostitution.  These  polluted  patrons  of 
licentiousness,  according  to  their  pleasure,  passion,  whim,  or 
caprice,  elected  popes,  collated  bishops,  disposed  of  diocesses, 
and  indeed  assumed,  in  a  great  measure,  the  whole  administra- 
tion of  the  church.  The  Roman  See,  become  the  prey  of 
ivarice  and  ambition,  was  given  to  the  highest  bidder.1 

These  vile  harlots,  according  to  folly  or  fancy,  obtruded  their 
filthy  gallants  or  spurious  offspring  on  the  pontifical  throne. 
Theodora,  having  conceived  a  violent  but  base  passion  for  John 
the  Tenth,  raised  her  gallant  to  the  papacy.  The  pontiff,  like 
his  patron,  was  an  example  of  sensuality ;  and  was  afterwards, 
in  924,  at  the  instigation  of  Marozia,  deposed,  and,  in  all  pro- 
bability, strangled  by  Wido,  Marquis  of  Tuscany.  Marozia  was 
mistress  to  Sergius  the  Third,  who  treated  the  dead  body  of 
Formosus  with  such  indignity.  She  brought  her  pontifical 
paramour  a  son ;  and  this  hopeful  scion  of  illegitimacy  and  the 
popedom  was,  by  his  precious  mother,  promoted  to  the  vice- 
gerency  of  heaven.  His  conduct  was  worthy  of  his  genealogy. 
He  was  thrown,  however,  into  prison  by  Alberic,  Marozia' s  son 
by  Adelbert,  where  he  died  of  grief,  or,  some  say,  by  assassina- 
tion.2 The  person  who  can  believe  in  the  validity  of  such 
elections,  and  the  authority  of  such  pontiffs,  must  possess  an 
extraordinary  supply  of  faith,  or  rather  of  credulity. 

A  person  desirous  of  painting  scenes  of  atrocity  and  filth, 
might,  in  the  history  of  the  popedom,  find  ample  materials  of 
gratification.  A  mass  of  moral  impurity  might  be  collected 
from  the  Roman  hierarchy,  sufficient  to  crowd  the  pages  of 
folios,  and  glut  all  the  demons  of  pollution  and  malevolence. 
But  delineations  of  this  kind  afford  no  pleasing  task.  The  facts, 
therefore,  on  this  topic  shall  be  supplied  with  a  sparing  hand. 
A  few  specimens,  however,  are  necessary,  and  shall  be  selected 
from  the  biography  of  John,  Boniface,  Gregory,  Sixtus,  Alex- 
ander, Julius,  and  Leo. 

John  the  Twelfth  ascended  the  papal  throne  in  955,  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  his  age.  His  youthful  days  were  charac- 
terized by  barbarity  and  pollution.  He  surpassed  aL  his  prede- 

1  Le  siege  de  Rome  etoit  donr.e  au  plus  offerant.    Giannon.  VII.  5.  An.  Eccl.  345. 

3  Spon.  929.  I.  et  933.  I.  Giannon,  VII.  5.  6.  Luitprand,  II.  13.  Petavius,  I. 
418.  L'infame  Theodora  fit  elire  pour  Pape.  le  plus  declare  de  ses  amans,  qui 
fut  appelle  Jean  X.  Baroiiius  ecrit,  qu'  alors  Rome  etoit  sans  Pape.  An.  Eccl 
345.  Giannon,  VII.  5. 


110  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

cessors,  says  Platina,  in  debauchery.  His  holiness,  in  a  Roman 
synod,  before  Otho  the  Great,  was  found  guilty  of  blasphemy, 
perjury,  profanation,  impiety,  simony,  sacrilege,  adultery,  incest, 
constupration,  and  murder.  He  swore  allegiance  to  Otho,  and 
afterwards  revolted  to  his  enemy.  Ordination,  which  he  often 
bartered  for  money,  he  conferred  on  a  deacon  in  a  stable,  and 
on  a  boy  ten  years  old  by  constituting  him  a  bishop.  He  killed 
John,  a  sub-deacon,  by  emasculation,  Benedict  by  putting  out 
his  eyes,  and,  in  the  wantonness  of  cruelty,  amputated  the  nose 
of  one  cardinal,  and  the  hand  of  another.  He  drank  a  health 
to  the  devil,  invoked  Jupiter  and  Venus,  lived  in  public  adul- 
tery with  the  Roman  matrons,  and  committed  incest  with  Ste- 
phania,  his  father's  concubine.  The  Lateran  palace,  formerly 
the  habitation  of  purity,  he  converted  into  a  sink  of  infamy  and 
prostitution.  Fear  of  violation  from  Peter's  successor  deterred 
female  pilgrims,  maids,  matrons,  and  widows,  from  visiting 
Peter's  tomb.  His  infallibility,  when  summoned  to  attend  the 
synod  to  answer  for  these  charges,  refused  ;  but  excommunicated 
the  council  in  the  name  of  Almighty  God.  The  clergy  and 
laity,  however,  declared  his  guilt,  and  prayed,  if  the  accusations 
were  unfounded,  that  they  might  be  accursed,  and  placed  on 
the  left  hand  at  the  day  of  judgment.  The  pontifical  villain 
was  deposed  by  the  Roman  council.  But  he  afterward  re- 
gained the  Holy  See ;  and,  being  caught  in  adultery,  was 
killed,  says  Luitprand,  by  the  devil,  or,  more  probably,  by  the 
injured  husband.  John,  says  Bellarmine,  *  was  nearly  the  wick- 
edest of  the  popes.'1  Some  of  the  vice-gods,  therefore,  the 
cardinal  suggests,  surpassed  his  holiness  in  miscreancy. 

Boniface  the  Seventh,  who  seized  the  papal  chair  in  974, 
murdered  his  predecessor  and  successor.  Historians  represent 
him  as  the  basest  and  wickedest  of  mankind.  Baronius  calls 
him  a  thief,  a  miscreant,  and  a  murderer,  who  is  to  be  reckoned, 
not  among  the  Roman  pontiffs,  but  among  the  notorious  robbers 
of  the  age.  Gerbert  and  Vignier  characterize  this  vice-god  as 
a  monster,  who  surpassed  all  mankind  in  miscreancy.2  Prompted 
by  Boniface,  Crescentius  strangled  Benedict  the  Sixth,  Boni- 
face's predecessor,  and  placed  Boniface  on  the  papal  chair. 
But  the  Roman  citizens,  provoked  with  the  pontiff's  atrocity, 
deposed  him  from  his  dignity,  and  expelled  him  from  the  city. 

1  Ordinationes   episcoporum   faceret  pretio.     Benedictum  lumine   privasse,  et 
mox  mortuum  esse.     Joannem  virilibus  amputatis  occidisse. 

Viduam  Roenarii  et  Stephanam  patris  concubinam  et  Annam  viduam  cum  nepte 
siia  abusum  esse  :  et  sanctum  pal utium  lupanar  et  prostibulum  ie^isse.  Labb.  ii. 
881.  A  Diabolo  est  percussus.  Labb.  ii.  873.  Platina,  132.  Beliarmin.  ii.  20. 

2  Sacrilegus  praedo  sedem  Apostolicum  invasit  Bonifacius,  annumerandus  inter 
t'araosns  latrones.     Spoil.  974.  I.  et  985.     Bruy.  2.  265,  271.     Boniface,  monstre 
horrible,  surmontant  tous  les  huraains  en  mechancetez.     Vignier,  2.  608. 


CHARACTER  OF  GREGORY  THE  SEVENTH.        Ill 

The  exiled  pontiff,  however,  was  not,  it  appears,  ambitious  of 
travelling  in  the  train  of  poverty.  Th«;  treasury  of  the  Vatican 
was  rifled  by  this  apostolical  robber,  and  its  sacred  ornaments 
and  vessels  conveyed  by  his  holy  hands  to  Constantinople. 
Benedict  the  Seventh  was,  by  universal  suffrage,  substituted  in 
his  stead.  He  held  the  papacy  nine  years,  in  opposition  to 
Boniface,  and  was  succeeded  by  John  the  Fourteenth.  Boni- 
face, in  the  mean  time,  having  sold  the  spoils  of  the  Vatican, 
and  amassed  a  vast  sum  of  money,  returned  to  Rome.  This 
treasure  he  expended  in  the  bribery  of  his  partizans,  who,  by 
main  violence,  replaced  the  ruffian,  in  985,  on  the  pontifical 
throne.  John,  who  had  succeeded  during  his  absence,  he  im- 
prisoned in  the  castle  of  Angelo,  where,  in  four  months  after, 
he  died  of  starvation  and  misery.  But  even  the  death  of  his 
rival  could  not  satiate  the  vengeance  of  Boniface.  John's  cold, 
pale,  stiffened,  emaciated  corpse  was  placed  at  the  door  of  the 
castle,  and  there,  in  all  its  ghastly  and  haggard  frightfulness, 
exposed  to  the  public  gaze.  But  the  murderer  did  not  long 
survive  this  insult  on  the  dead.  He  died  suddenly,  and  his 
naked  carcass,  mangled  and  lacerated  by  his  former  partizans, 
to  whom  he  had  become  odious,  was,  with  the  utmost  indignity, 
dragged  through  the  streets. 

Gregory  the  Seventh,  who  obtained  the  papacy  in  1073,  was 
another  pontifical  patron  of  iniquity.  He  was  elected  on  the 
day  of  his  predecessor's  funeral,  by  the  populace  and  soldiery, 
through  force  and  bribery,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  em- 
peror or  the  clergy.  Desiderius,  abbot  of  Monte  Cassino,  on 
this  head,  accused  Hildebrand  to  his  face  of  precipitation.  He 
obtained  the  supremacy,  in  the  general  opinion,  by  gross 
simony.1  He  had  the  hypocrisy  or  hardihood,  nevertheless, 
to  pretend  that  the  dignity  was  obtruded  on  him  against  his 
will. 

Benno  has  sketched  the  character  of  this  pontiff'  in  strong 
colours.  This  cardinal  accused  his  holiness  of  simony,  sacii 
lege,  epicurism,  magic,  sorcery,  treason,  impiety,  and  murder. 
The  Italians  of  Lombardy  drew  nearly  as  frightful  a  portrait  of 
his  supremacy.  These  represented  his  holiness  as  having 
gained  the  pontifical  dignity  by  simony,  and  stained  it  by 
assassination  and  adultery. 

The  councils  of  Worms  and  Brescia  depicted  his  character 
with  great  precision.  The  council  of  Worms,  comprehending 
tbrty-six  of  the  German  prelacy,  met  in  1076,  and  preferred 
numerous  imputations  against  Gregory.  This  synod  found  his 
holiness  guilty  of  usurpation,  simony,  a postacy,  treason,  schism, 

1  Du  Pin,  2.  210,  215.     Bruy.  2.  427. 


112  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

heresy,  chicanery,  dissimulation,  fornication,  adultery,  and  per- 
jury. His  infallibility,  according  to  this  assembly,  debased 
sacred  theology  by  innovation,  and  scandalized  Christendom  by 
his  intimacy  with  the  Princess  Matilda.  His  holiness,  in  the 
sentence  of  the  German  prelacy,  preferred  harlots  to  women 
of  character,  and  adultery  and  incest  to  chaste  and  holy 
matrimony.1 

The  council  of  Brescia,  in  1078,  pourtrayed  his  supremacy 
with  equal  freedom.  This  assembly,  composed  of  thirty,  bishops, 
and  many  princes  from  Italy,  France,  and  Germany,  called 
Gregory  a  fornicator,  an  impostor,  an  assassin,  a  violator  of  the 
canons,  a  disseminator  of  discord,  a  disturber  of  the  Christian 
commonwealth,  and  a  pestilential  patron  of  all  madness,  who 
had  sown  scandal  among  friends,  dissension  among  the  peaceful, 
and  separation  among  the  married.  The  Brescian  fathers,  then 
declared  his  holiness  guilty  of  bribery,  usurpation,  simony, 
sacrilege,  ferocity,  vain-glory,  ambition,  impiety,  obstinacy, 
perverseness,  sorcery,  divination,  necromancy,  schism,  heresy, 
Berengarianism,  infidelity,  assassination,  and  perjury.  The 
sacred  synod  having,  in  this  manner,  done  justice  to  his  charac- 
ter, deposed  Gregory  from  his  dignity  by  the  authority  of 
Almighty  God.2 

The  fathers  of  Worms  and  Brescia  supported  the  Emperor 
Henry  against  Pope  Gregory.  Their  condemnation  of  the 
pontiff  the  re  fore  has,  by  Labbe,  Alexander,  and  Binius,  been 
reckoned  the  effect  of  personal  hostility,  and,  on  this  account, 
unworthy  of  credit.  Their  sentence,  indeed,  is  no  great  evi- 
dence of  their  friendship  for  his  holiness.  But  these  two 
councils  were,  in  this  respect,  in  the  same  situation  with  the 
other  synods  who  have  condemned  any  of  the  Roman  hierarchs. 
The  Roman  synod  that  condemned  John  the  Twelfth,  the 
Parisian  assembly  that  convicted  Boniface,  the  Pisan  and  Con- 
stantian  councils  that  degraded  Gregory,  Benedict,  and  John, 
all  these  were  placed  in  similar  circumstances,  and  actuated 
by  similar  motives.  But  their  sentences  are  not,  therefore,  to 
be  accounted  the  mere  ebullitions  of  calumny.  Gregory's  sen- 
tence of  deposition  against  Henry  was,  according  to  the  parti- 
zans  of  popery  in  the  present  day,  an  unlawful  act,  and  beyond 
the  limits  of  pontifical  authority.  The  fathers  of  Worms  and 
Brescia,  therefore,  had  a  right  to  withstand  Gregory  in  his 
assumption  and  exercise  of  illegal  and  unconstitutional  power. 

Boniface  equalled,  if  he  did  not  surpass  Gregory,  in  all  the 
arts  of  villany.  These  arts  he  practised  on  his  predecessor 

1  Labb.  12.  517,     Cossart,  2.  11,  48.     Bruy.  2.  471.     Alex.  18.  398. 
8  Labb.  12.  646.     Alexander,  18.  402. 


CHARACTER  OF  GREGORY  THE  SEVENTH.        113 

Oelestin,  a  silly  old  dotard,  who,  prior  to  Boniface,  placed  on 
the  pontifical  throne,  and  clothed  with  infallibility,  governed 
Christendom.  He  had  been  a  visionary  monk,  who,  in  his 
mountain  cave,  mistook  his  own  dreams  for  inspiration,  and 
the  whistling  of  the  winds  for  the  accents  of  divine  revelation, 
and  spent  his  useless  days  in  vain  contemplation  and  in  the  un- 
relenting maceration  of  his  body.  He  considered  his  body,  says 
Alliaco,  as  a  domestic  enemy.  He  would  descend  into  a  pit 
during  the  cold  and  snow,  and  remain  till  his  clothes  would  be 
frozen.  He  wore  a  knotted  hair-cloth  which  mangled  his  flesh, 
till  it  sometimes  corrupted  and  produced  worms.  This  vision- 
ary, in  his  fanaticism,  was  transferred  from  a  mountain  cavern 
of  Apulia  to  the  holy  chair  of  Saint  Peter ;  and  his  election, 
says  Alexander,  *  was  the  effect  of  divine  afflatus.'1 

Cardinal  Cajetan,  afterwards  Boniface  the  Eighth,  was,  in 
the  mean  time,  ambitious  of  the  popedom.  He  formed  a  plan, 
in  consequence,  to  induce  Celestin  to  resign,  that  he  might  be 
substituted  in  his  stead.  Knowing  Celestin' s  superstition,  he 
spoke  through  a  tube  during  the  stillness  of  the  night  to  the 
pontiff,  and  enjoined  him  to  resign  the  papacy.  The  voice  of 
the  impostor  Celestin  mistook  for  the  warning  of  an  angel,  and, 
in  obedience  to  the  command,  renounced  his  authority.  His 
reasons  for  abdication  are  a  curiosity.  He  resigned  on  account 
of  debility  of  body,  defect  of  information,  and  the  malignity 
of  the  people.  Boniface,  who  in  1294  was  chosen  in  his  place, 
imprisoned  the  old  man  with  such  circumstances  of  severity 
as  caused  his  death.2 

The  character  of  Boniface  was  placed  in  a  striking  point  of 
view  by  Nogaret  and  Du  Plesis.  The  pontiff  had  offended 
Philip  the  Fair,  King  of  France,  by  his  bulls  of  deposition 
issued  against  that  monarch.  His  majesty,  in  consequence, 
called  two  conventions  of  the  three  estates  of  the  French 
nation.  Nogaret  and  Du  Plesis,  in  these  meetings,  accused 
Boniface  of  usurpation,  simony,  ambition,  avarice,  church- 
robbery,  extortion,  tyranny,  impiety,  abomination,  blasphemy, 
heresy,  infidelity,  murder,  and  the  sin  for  which  Sodom  was 
consumed.  His  infallibility  represented  the  gospel  as  a  medley 
of  truth  and  falsehood,  and  denied  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  the  Trinity,  the  incarnation,  arid  the  immortality  of 
the  soul.  The  soul  of  man,  his  holiness  affirmed,  was  the  same 
as  a  beast's ;  and  he  believed  no  more  in  the  Virgin  Mary  than 
in  an  ass,  nor  in  her  son  than  in  the  foal  of  an  ass.3 

1  Clestinus  simplex  erat.  Eberhard,  An.   1290.     Bruy.  3.  302.     Andilly,  806. 
Alex.  20.  140.     Canisius,  4.  223. 
8  Bruy.  3.  367.     Mariana,  3.  256. 
3  Les  homnes  ont  lea  memes  ames,  que  lea  betes.     L'Evangile  enseigne  plusieure 

8 


J14  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

These  accusations  were  not  mere  hearsay,  but  supported  or« 
authentic  and  unquestionable  evidence.  Fourteen" witnesses, 
men  of  credibility,  deposed  to  their  truth.  Nogaret  and  Du 
Plesis  offered  to  prove  all  these  allegations  before  a  genera] 
council.  But  Benedict  and  Clement,  successors  to  Boniface, 
shrunk  from  the  task  of  vindicating  their  predecessor,  or,  con- 
scious of  his  guilt,  spun  out  the  time  of  the  trial  by  various 
interruptions,  without  coming  to  any  conclusion.1 

The  simplicity  of  Celestin  and  the  subtlety  of  Boniface  made 
both  unhappy.  Superstition  made  Celestin  a  self-tormentor ; 
while  his  silliness,  united  indeed  with  superstition,  rendered  him 
the  easy  victim  of  Boniface.  The  understanding  and  infidelity 
of  Boniface  were  just  sufficient  to  pull  destruction  on  his  own 
head.  The  ambition  of  Boniface  was  as  fatal  to  its  possessor,  as 
the  submission  of  Celestin.  Boniface,  on  his  disappointment, 
died,  gnawing  his  fingers,  and  knocking  his  head  against  the 
wall  like  one  in  desperation.  He  entered  the  papacy,  it  has 
been  said,  like  a  fox,  reigned  like  a  lion,  and  died  like  a  dog. 

John  the  Twenty-third  seems,  if  possible,  to  have  exceeded 
all  his  predecessors  in  enormity.  This  pontiff  moved  in  an  exten- 
sive field  of  action,  and  discovered,  during  his  whole  career,  the 
deepest  depravity.  The  atrocity  of  his  life  was  ascertained 
and  published  by  the  general  council  of  Constance,  after  a 
tedious  trial  and  the  examination  of  many  witnesses.  Thirty- 
seven  were  examined  on  only  one  part  of  the  imputations. 
Many  of  these  were  bishops  and  doctors  in  law  and  theology, 
and  all  were  men  of  probity  and  intelligence.  His  holiness, 
therefore,  was  convicted  on  the  best  authority,  and  indeed  con- 
fessed his  own  criminality. 

The  allegations  against  his  infallibility  were  of  two  kinds. 
One  respected  faith  and  the  other  morality.  His  infallibility, 
in  the  former,  was  convicted  of  schism,  heresy,  deism,  infidelity, 
heathenism,  and  profanity.  He  fostered  schism,  by  refusing  to 
resign  the  popedom  for  the  sake  of  unity.  He  rejected  all  the 

veritez,  et  plusieurs  mensonges.  La  doctrine  de  la  Trinite  est  fausse,  1'enfantement 
d'une  vierge  est  impossible,  1'incarnation  du  fils  de  Dieu  ridicule  aussi  bien  que  la 
transubstantiation.  Je  ne  crois  plus  en  elle  qu'en  une  anesse,  ni  a  son  Fils,  qu'  an 
poiiiaw  d'une  anesse.  Bruy.  3.  346.  Du  Puy,  529.  Alex.  22.  319,  327.  Boss. 
1.  278. 

Papac  Bonifacio  multa  imposuerunt  enormia,  puta,  haeresim,  simoniam,  >t  homo- 
cidia,  Trivets  An.  1303.  Dachery,  228. 

Rex  Francorem  ossa  Bonifacii  petiit  ad  conburandum,  tanquam  hseretici.  Trivet. 
Ann,  1306.  Dachery,  3,231.  Eberhard,  Anno.  1303.  Canisius,  4.  228. 

1  Daniel,  4.  456.     Du  Pin,  2.  494. 

Audiens  Rex  Franci?e  Philippus  apluribus  fide  dignis  personis,  Papam  Bonifacium 
detestandis  infectum  crimimbus  diversisque  haeresibus  irretitum.  Nangis,  Ann. 
1303.  Dachery,  3.  56. 

Nogaretus  abjecta  crimina  ediem  innovavit,  eaque  legitime  proltare  se  offereni. 
Nangis,  Ann.  1309.  Dachery,  3,  62.  Daniel.  4.  456. 


THE    CHARACTER   OF   JOHN    THE    TWENTY-THIRD.          115 

truths  of  the  gospel  and  all  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  He 
denied  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
and  the  responsibility  of  man.  The  human  spirit,  according  to 
this  head  of  the  church,  is,  like  that  of  the  brute  creation, 
extinguished  at  death.  Agreeable  to  his  belief  or  rather  unbe- 
lief, he  disregarded  all  the  institutions  of  revealed  religion. 
These  principles,  he  held  with  the  utmost  pertinacity.  Accord- 
ing to  the  language  of  the  Constantian  assembly,  his  infalli- 
bility, actuated  by  the  devil,  pertinaciously  said,  asserted,  dog- 
matized, and  maintained  before  sundry  bishops  and  other  men 
of  integrity,  that  man,  like  the  irrational  animals,  became  at 
death  extinct  both  in  soul  and  body.1 

The  other  imputations  respected  morality.  The  list  of  alle- 
gations contained  seventy  particulars.  But  twenty  were  sup- 
pressed for  the  honour  of  the  apostolic  see.  John,  says  Labbe, 
*  was  convicted  of  forty  crimes.'2  The  Constantian  fathers, 
found  his  holiness  guilty  of  simony,  piracy,  exaction,  barbarity, 
robbery,  massacre,  murder,  lying,  perjury,  fornication,  adultery, 
incest,  constupration,and  sodomy ;  and  characterized  his  suprem- 
acy as  the  oppressor  of  the  poor,  the  persecutor  of  the  just, 
the  pillar  of  iniquity,  the  column  of  simony,  the  slave  of  sensu- 
ality, the  alien  of  virtue,  the  dregs  of  apostacy,  the  inventor  of 
malevolence,  the  mirror  of  infamy ,  and,  to  finish  the  climax,  an 
incarnated  devil.  The  accusation,  says  Niem,  '  contained  all 
mortal  sins  and  an  infinity  of  abominations.' 

His  simony,  according  to  the  council,  appeared  in  the  way 
in  which  he  obtained  the  cardinalship,  the  popedom,  and  sold 
indulgences.  He  gained  the  cardinal  and  pontifical  dignity  by 
bribery  and  violence.  He  extorted  vast  sums  by  the  traffic  of 
indulgences  in  several  cities,  such  as  Utrecht,  Mechlin,  and 
Antwerp.  He  practised  piracy  with  a  high  hand,  during  the 
war  between  Ladislas  and  Lewis,  for  the  kingdom  of  Naples. 
His  exactions,  on  many  occasions,  were  attended  with  massacre 
and  inhumanity.  His  treatment  of  the  citizens  of  Bologna  und 
Rome  will  supply  a  specimen  of  his  cruelty  and  extortions. 
He  exercised  legatine  authority  for  some  time  in  Bologna, 
and  nearly  depopulated  the  city  by  barbarity,  injustice,  tyranny, 
rapine,  dilapidation,  and  murder.  He  oppressed  Rome  and 
dissipated  the  patrimony  of  Peter.  He  augmented  former 
impost  and  invented  new  ones,  and  then  abandoned  the  capital 
to  be  pillaged  and  sacked  by  the  enemy.  His  desertion  exposed 
the  women  to  the  brutality  of  the  soldiery,  and  the  men  to 
spoliation,  imprisonment,  assassination,  and  galley-slavery.  He 

i  Labb.  16    178.     Brays,  4.  41.     Du  Pin,  3.  13.     Crabb.  2.  1050.     Bin.  7.  1036 
8  Criminibus  quadraginta  convictus.     Labb.  15.  1378.  et  16.  154. 

8* 


116  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

poisoned  Alexander  his  predecessor,  and  Daniel  who  was  his 
physician.  His  conduct,  through  life,  evinced  mcorrigibility, 
pertinacity,  obduracy,  lying,  treachery,  falsehood,  perjury,  and 
a  diabolical  spirit.1 

His  youth  was  spent  in  defilement  and  impudicity.  He  passed 
his  nights  in  debauchery  and  his  days  in  sleep.  He  violated 
married  women  and  deflowered  holy  nuns.  Three  hundred  of 
these  devoted  virgins  were  the  unwilling  victims  of  his  licen- 
tiousness. He  was  guilty  of  incest  with  three  maiden  sisters 
and  with  his  brother's  wife.  He  gratified  his  unnatural  lust  on 
a  mother  and  her  son  ;  while  the  father  with  difficulty  escaped. 
He  perpetrated  the  sin  of  sodom  on  many  youths,  of  which  one, 
contracting  in  consequence  a  mortal  malady,  died,  the  martyr 
of  pollution  and  iniquity.2 

Such  was  the  pontiff  who,  according  to  the  Florentine  coun- 
cil, was  '  the  vicar-general  of  God,  the  head  of  the  church,  and 
the  father  and  teacher  of  ah1  Christians.'  His  holiness,  it  \vould 
appear,  was  indeed  the  father  of  a  great  many,  though  perhaps 
his  offspring  were  not  all  Christians.  The  council  of  Constance 
indeed  deposed  John  from  the  papacy.  But  pope  Martin  after- 
ward raised  him  to  the  cardinalship,  and  treated  him  with  the 
same  honour  and  respect  as  the  rest  of  the  sacred  college.  His 
remains,  after  death,  were  honourably  interred  in  John's  church. 
John,  with  all  his  miscreancy,  was  elevated  to  a  dignity  second 
only  to  the  pontifical  supremacy.  Jerome  and  Huss,  notwith- 
standing their  sanctity,  were,  by  an  unerring  council,  tried 
without  justice  and  burned  without  mercy. 

Sixtus  the  Fourth,  who  was  elected  in  1471,  walked  in  the 
footsteps  of  his  predecessors,  Gregory,  Boniface,  and  John. 
This  pontiff  has,  with  reason,  been  accused  of  murder  and 
debauchery.  He  conspired  for  the  assassination  of  Julian  and 
Laurentius,  two  of  the  Medicean  family.  He  engaged  Pazzi, 
who  was  chief  of  the  faction,  which,  in  Florence,  was  hostile  to 
the  Medici,  in  the  stratagem.  Pazzi  was  supported  in  the 
diabolical  attempt  by  Riario,  Montesecco,  Salvian,  and  Poggio. 
The  conspirators,  who  were  many,  attacked  Julian  and  Lauren- 
tius during  mass  on  Sunday.  Julian  was  killed.  Laurentius 
fled  wounded  to  the  vestry,  where  he  was  saved  from  the  fury 
of  the  assassins.  The  Medicean  faction,  in  the  mean  time, 


i  Labb.  16.  154, 158,  184.     Bray.  4.  3.     Lenfant,  1.  281. 

3  Multos  Juvenes  destruxit  in  posterioribus,  quorum  unus  in  fluxu  sanguinia 
decessit.  Violavit  tres  virgines  eorores,  et  cognovit  matrein,  etfilium,  et  pater  vix 
evasit.  Hard.  4.  228.  Lenfan.  1.  290.  II  etoit  claireraent  prouve,  qu'il  avoit 
joui  de  la  Mere  et  du  Fils,  et  que  le  Pere  avoit  eu  de  la  peine  &  6chapper  &  sea 
criminels  desirs.  Bruy.  4.  49.  Labb.  16.  163.  Bin.  7.  1035. 


CHARACTER    OF    JOHN    THE    TWENTY-THIRD.  117 

mustered  and  assailed  the  conspirators,  on  whom  they  took  an 
ample  and  summary  vengeance.1 

Sixtus  patronized  debauchery  as  well  as  murder.  His  holi- 
ness, for  this  worthy  purpose,  established  brothels  extraordinary 
in  Rome.  His  infallibility,  in  consequence,  became  head,  riot 
only  of  the  church,  but  also  of  the  stews.  He  presided  with 
ability  and  applause  in  two  important  departments,  and  was  the 
vicar-general  of  God  and  of  Venus.  These  seminaries  of  pollu- 
tion, it  seems,  brought  a  great  accession  to  the  ecclesiastical 
revenue.  The  goddesses,who  were  worshipped  in  these  temples, 
paid  a  weekly  tax  from  the  wages  of  iniquity  to  the  viceroy  of 
heaven.  The  sacred  treasury,  by  this  means,  received  from  this 
apostolic  tribute  an  annual  augmentation  of  20,000  ducats.  His 
supremacy  himself,  was,  it  seems,  a  regular  and  steady  customer 
in  his  new  commercial  establishments.  He  nightly  worshipped, 
with  great  zeal  and  devotion,  in  these  pontifical  fanes  which 
he  had  erected  to  the  Cytherean  goddess.2  Part  of  the  tribute, 
therefore,  from  these  schools  of  the  Grecian  divinity,  his  holi- 
ness, as  was  right,  expended  on  the  premises. 

Alexander  the  Sixth,  in  the  common  opinion,  surpassed  all 
his  predecessors  in  atrocity.  This  monster,  whom  humanity 
disowns,  seems  to  have  excelled  all  his  rivals  in  the  arena  of 
villainy,  and  outstripped  every  competitor  on  the  stadium  of  mis- 
creancy. Sannazarius  compared  Alexander  to  Nero,  Caligula, 
and  Heliogabalus  :  and  Pope,  in  his  celebrated  Essay  on  Man, 
likened  Borgia,  which  was  the  family  name,  to  Cataline.  This 
pontiff,  according  to  cotemporary  historians,  was  actuated,  to 
measureless  excess,  with  vanity,  ambition,  cruelty,  covetousnoss, 
rapacity,  and  sensuality,  and  void  of  all  faith,  honour,  sincerity, 
truth,  fidelity,  decency,  religion,  shame,  modesty,  and  compunc- 
tion. 'His  debauchery,  perfidy,  ambition,  malice, inhumanity, 
and  irreligion,'  says  Daniel,  '  made  him  the  execration  of  all 
Europe.'  Rome,  under  his  administration  and  by  his  example, 
became  the  sink  of  filthiness,  the  head-quarters  of  atrocity,  and 
the  hot-bed  of  prostitution,  murder,  and  robbery.3 

Hypocrisy  formed  one  trait  in  his  early  character.  His 
youth,  indeed,  evinced  to  men  of  discernment  symptoms  of 
baseness  and  degeneracy.  But  he  possessed,  in  a  high  degree, 

1  Bayle,  2598.     Bruy.  4.  241.     Moreii,  8.  304. 

2  Agrippa,  c.  LXIV.     Bruy.  4.  260.     Bayle,  3.  2602. 

3  Sannazarius   ilium    cum   Caligulis   confert,   cum  Neronibus   et  Heliogabalis. 
Sann.  II.     Montfaucon,  Monum.  4.  85. 

Les  debordemens  publics,  les  perfidies,  1'ambition  demesuree,  1'avarice  insatia- 
ble, la  cruaute,  1'irreligion  en  avoient  fait  l'ob}et  de  1'execration  de  toute  1'Europe, 
Daniel,?.  84.  » 

Mulieribus  maxime  addictus.  Nee  noctu  tutum  per  urbem  itfir,  nee  interdiu  ex 
tra  urbem.  Roma  jam  carnificia  facta  erat.  Alex.  23.  113. 


118  THE    VARIATIONS   OF    POPERY  I 

the  art  of  concealment  from  common  observation.  His  dissimu- 
lation appeared,  in  a  particular  manner,  on  his  appointment 
to  the  cardinalship.  He  walked  with  downcast  eyes,  affected 
devotion  and  humility,  and  preached  repentance  and  sanctity. 
He  imposed,  by  these  arts,  on  the  populace,  who  compared 
him  to  Job,  Moses,  and  Solomon. 

But  depravity  lurked  under  this  specious  display ;  and  broke 
out,  in  secret,  in  sensuality,  and  incest.  He  formed  an  illicit 
connexion  with  a  widow  who  resided  at  Rome,  and  with  her 
two  daughters.  His  passions,  irregular  and  brutal,  could  find 
gratification  only  in  enormity.  His  licentiousness,  after  the 
widow's  death,  drove  him  to  the  incestuous  enjoyment  of  her 
daughter,  the  notorious  and  infamous  Vannoza.  She  became 
his  mistress  after  her  mother's  decease.  His  holiness,  in  the 
pursuit  of  variety  and  the  perpetration  of  atrocity,  afterward 
formed  a  criminal  connexion  with  his  own  daughter,  the  witty, 
the  learned,  the  gay,  and  the  abandoned  Lucretia.  She  was 
mistress  to  her  own  father  and  brother.  Pontanus,  in  con- 
sequence, represented  Lucretia  as  Alexander's  daughter,  wife, 
and  daughter-in-law.1  Peter's  palace,  in  this  manner,  became 
a  scene  of  debauchery  and  abomination. 

Simony  and  assassination  were  as  prominent  in  Alexander's 
character  as  incest  and  debauchery,  fie  purchased  the  papacy, 
and  afterward,  for  remuneration  and  to  glut  his  rapacity,  he 
sold  its  offices  and  preferments.  He  first  bought,  it  has  been 
said,  and  then  sold,  the  keys,  the  altar,  and  the  Saviour.  He 
murdered  the  majority  of  the  cardinals  who  raised  him  to  the 
popedom,  and  seized  their  estates.  He  had  a  family  of  spurious 
sons  and  daughters,  and  for  the  aggrandizement  of  these  chil- 
dren of  illegitimacy,  he  exposed  to  sale  all  things  sacred  and 
profane,  and  violated  and  outraged  all  the  laws  of  God  and 
man.2 

His  death  was  the  consequence  of  an  attempt  to  poison  the 
rich  cardinals  for  the  sake  of  their  possessions.  Alexander  and 
Borgia,  father  and  son,  actuated  with  this  design,  invited  the 
Sacred  College  to  a  sumptuous  banquet,  near  the  fountain  in 
the  delightful  garden  of  Belvidere.  Poisoned  wine  was  pre- 
pared for  the  unsuspecting  guests.  But  the  poisoned  cup  was, 
by  mistake,  handed  to  the  father  and  son,  who  drunk  without 
knowing  their  danger.  Borgia's  constitution,  for  a  time,  over- 
came the  virulence  of  the  poison.  But  Alexander  soon  died 
oy  the  stratagem  he  had  prepared  for  the  murder  of  his  friends  8 


1  Alexandri  filia,  nupta,  nurus.     Pontanus  in  Bruy.  4.  280. 
»  Moreri,  1.  270.         3  Labb.  19.  523.     Mont.  Monum.  4.  84. 


PROFLIGATE    CONDUCT    OF    ALEXANDER    THE    SIXTH.          119 

Julius  the  Second  succeeded  Alexander  in  the  papacy  and 
m  iniquity.  His  holiness  was  guilty  of  simony,  chicanery,  per- 
jury, thievery,  empoisonment,  assassination,  drunkenness,  im- 
pudicity,  and  sodomy.  He  bribed  the  cardinals  to  raise  him 
to  the  popedom ;  and  employed,  on  the  occasion,  all  kinds  of 
falsehood  and  trickery.  He  swore  to  convoke  a  general  council, 
and  violated  his  oath.1 

His  infallibility's  drunkenness  was  proverbial.  He  was 
1  mighty  to  drink  wine.'  He  practised  incontinency  as  well  as 
inebriation,  and  the  effects  of  this  crime  shattered  his  consti- 
tution. One  of  his  historians  represents  his  holiness  as  ah1 
corroded  with  the  disease  which,  in  the  judgment  of  God,  often 
attends  this  kind  of  filthiness.  The  atrocity  for  which  Sodom 
was  consumed  with  fire  from  heaven  is  also  reckoned  among 
his  deeds  of  pollution  and  excess.2 

His  ingratitude  and  enmity  to  the  French  nation  formed  one 
dark  feature  in  his  character.  The  French  king  protected  him 
against  Alexander  who  sought  his  ruin.  The  French  nation 
was  his  asylum  in  the  time  of  danger  and  in  the  day  of  distress. 
This  friendship  he  afterwards  repaid  with  detestation,  because 
Lewis  patronized  the  convocation  of  a  general  council.  Julius 
offered  rewards  to  any  person  who  would  kill  a  Frenchman. 
One  of  these  rewards  was  of  an  extraordinary,  or  rather  among 
the  popes  of  an  ordinary  kind.  He  granted  a  pardon  of  all 
sins  to  any  person  who  would  murder  only  an  individual  of  the 
French  nation.  The  vicegerent  of  heaven  conferred  the  for- 
giveness of  all  sin,  as  a  compensation  for  perpetrating  the 
shocking  crime  of  assassination.3 

Leo  the  Tenth,  in  1513,  succeeded  Julius  in  the  popedom 
and  in  enormity.  This  pontiff  has  been  accused  of  atheism, 
and  of  calling  the  Gospel,  in  the  presence  of  cardinal  Bembo, 
a  fable.  Mirandula,  who  mentions  a  pope  that  denied  God,  is, 
by  some,  supposed  to  have  referred  to  Leo.  His  holiness,  says 
Jovius,  was  reckoned  guilty  of  sodomy  with  his  chamberlains. 
These  reports,  however,  are  uncertain.  But  Leo,  beyond  all 
question,  was  addicted  to  pleasure,  luxury,  idleness,  ambition, 
unchastity,  and  sensuality  beyond  all  bounds  of  decency  ;  and 
spent  whole  days  in  the  company  of  musicians  and  buffoons.4 

Seventeen  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  were  perjurers.  These 
were  Felix,  Formosus,  John,  Gregory,  Pascal,  Clement,  John, 

1  Alex.  23.  118.     Bruy.  4.  371.     Caranza,  602. 

-  Tout  ronge  de  verole.     Bruy.  4.  371.     Zuing.  140.     Duobus  nobili»simi  generis 
adolescentibus  stuprum  intulerit.     Wolf.  2.  21. 

3  Hotman,  110. 

4  Non  cai-uit  etiam  infamia,   quod  parum  honeste  nonnullos  e  cubiculariis  ada- 
mare.    Jov.  192.     Bruy.  4.  417.     Guiccia.  XIV. 


120  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

Boniface,  Innocent,  Gregory,  Benedict,  John,  Eugenius,  Paul, 
Innocent,  Julius,  and  Paul.  Felix  and  the  rest  of  the  Roman 
clergy  swore  to  acknowledge  no  other  pontiff'  during  the  life  of 
Liberius,  whom  the  emperor  had  banished.  The  clergy,  not- 
withstanding, immediately  after,  while  Liberius  survived, 
elected  Felix  to  that  dignity,  which,  without  hesitation,  he 
accepted.1  A  perjured  Roman  bishop  then  presided  among 
the  perjured  Roman  clergy. 

Formosus  was  deposed  and  excommunicated  by  Pope  John, 
who  made  him  swear  never  again  to  enter  his  bishopric  or  the 
Roman  city.  Pope  Martin,  in  the  way  of  his  profession,  and 
with  great  facility,  dissolved  the  oath  and  restored  Formosus  to 
his  dignity.  The  obligation  having,  in  this  manner,  undergone 
a  chymical  analysis  in  the  pontifical  laboratory,  Formosus  re- 
turned with  a  good  conscience  and  with  great  propriety  to  his 
episcopal  seat,  and,  in  the  end,  to  the  Roman  See.2  John  the 
Twelfth,  in  957,  swore  fealty  to  Otho  on  the  body  of  Peter. 
This  solemn  obligation,  his  holiness  afterward  violated  and 
revolted  to  Adalbert  the  Emperor's  enemy.8  Gregory  the 
Seventh  took  an  oath,  inconsistent  with  the  acceptance  of  the 
Pontifical  dignity  with  which  he  was  afterward  vested.  The 
council  of  Worms,  in  consequence,  in  1076,  declared  his  holi- 
ness guilty  of  perjury.  Gregory,  besides,  made  Rodolph  of 
Germany  break  the  oath  of  fidelity  which  he  had  taken  to  the 
Emperor  Henry.4 

Pascal  the  Second,  in  1111,  granted  to  Henry  an  oath,  the 
right  of  investiture,  and  promised  never  to  excommunicate  the 
Emperor.  Pascal,  afterward  in  a  synod  of  the  Lateran,  excom- 
municated Henry.  His  holiness  excused  his  conduct  and 
pacified  his  conscience  by  an  extraordinary  specimen  of 
casuistry.  I  forswore,  said  his  infallibility,  the  excommunica- 
tion of  his  majesty  by  myself,  but  not  by  a  council.  Bravo! 
Pope  Pascal.  Clement  the  Fifth,  in  1307,  engaged  on  oath  to 
Philip  the  Fair,  to  condemn  the  memory  and  burn  the  bones 
of  Boniface  the  Eighth.  This  obligation,  his  holiness  violated. 
John  the  Twenty-second,  in  1316,  swore  to  Cardinal  Napoleon, 
to  mount  neither  horse  nor  mule  tih1  he  had  established  the 
holy  See  at  Rome.  His  holiness,  however,  established  his 
apostolic  court,  not  at  Rome,  but  at  Avignon.  He  satisfied 
his  conscience  by  sailing  instead  of  riding,  and  substituted  a 

1  Clerici  juraverunt  quod  nullum  alium  susceperunt.  Plurimi  perjuraverunt, 
Crabb.  1.  347.  Du  Pin,  1.  190.  Prosper,  292. 

*  Alex.  15.  88.     Bruy.  1.  187.     Luitp.  VI.  6. 

3 II  oublia  bientot  le  serment  de  fidelit6.  Bruy.  2.  242.  Joannes  Pontifex, 
immemor  juramenti  prsestiti,  Adelberto  se  conjunxit.  Labb.  11.  872. 

«  Du  Pin,  2.  214.    Labb.  12.  616.    Giannon,  X.  f 


121 

ship  for  a  land  conveyance.  John's  casuistry  was  nearly  as 
good  as  Pascal's.1 

Boniface,  Innocent,  Gregory,  Benedict,  and  John  engaged 
on  oath  to  resign  the  Papacy ;  but,  on  being  required  to  fulfil 
the  obligation,  these  viceroys  of  heaven  refused.  The  oaths, 
on  the  occasion,  were  of  the  most  solemn  kind.  Innocent  swore 
on  the  holy  Evangelists ;  and  Gregory,  in  the  name  of  God, 
Lady  Mary,  the  Apostles,  and  all  the  celestial  court.  Benedict 
swore  on  the  gospels  and  the  wood  of  the  cross.  The  oaths 
were  attended  with  dreadful  imprecations.  The  attempt  of  these 
vice-gods  to  evade  the  accomplishment  of  their  engagements, 
presents  a  scene  of  equivocation  and  chicanery,  which  is  un- 
equalled perhaps  in  the  annals  of  the  world.  Benedict,  said 
the  Parisian  University,  endeavoured  to  escape  by  a  forced  in- 
terpretation, contrary  to  the  intention  of  the  obligation.  Gregory 
and  Benedict,  says  Giannone,  swore  and  then  shuffled  about 
the  performance,  and,  according  to  Alexander,  resolved  to  re- 
tain their  dignity  contrary  to  the  sanctity  of  a  solemn  oath. 
Gregory  and  Benedict,  howerer,  on  this  occasion,  discovered 
some  candor.  Gregory,  said  the  council  of  Pisa,  contrary  to 
his  obligation,  declared  publicly  and  frequently,  that  the  way 
of  cession  was  unjust  and  diabolical,  and,  in  this,  he  agreed 
with  Benedict.  Gregory,  Benedict,  and  John  were,  in  the 
councils  of  Pisa  and  Constance,  condemned  for  perjury.2 

Eugenius  the  Fourth,  in  1439,  was  condemned  in  the  council 
of  Basil  for  perjury.  Paul  the  Second,  as  well  as  Innocent  the 
Eighth,  bound  himself  by  oath,  to  certain  regulations,  and 
afterwards  disregarded  his  engagement.  Julius  the  Second 
took  an  oath  on  the  gospels,  binding  himself  to  call  a  general 
council ;  but  afterward  deterred  the  fulfilment  of  the  treaty. 
The  breach  of  his  obligation  occasioned  the  convocation  of  the 
second  council  of  Pisa.  Paul  the  Fourth,  in  1556,  before  the 
seventh  month  of  his  Papacy,  created  seven  cardinals,  though 
he  had  sworn  in  the  conclave  before  his  election,  to  add  only 
four  to  the  sacred  college  for  two  years  after  his  accession, 
Seventeen  popes,  it  appears,  at  the  least,  were  foresworn.3  The 

1  Bruy.  2.  580.  et  3.  360,  390.     Du  Pin,  2.  281. 

8  Dixit  Gregorius  publice  et  frequenter,  quod  via  cessionis  erat  mala,  injusta,  et 
diabolica,  contra  juramenta,  congruens  in  his  cum  Benedicto.  Labb.  15.  1202. 
Du  Pin,  3.  16.  Juramentis  per  Joannem  Papam  super  hoc  factis  deviativum. 
Labb.  16.  142.  Contra  eorum  juramenta  et  vota.  Labb.  15.  1131.  Giannon,  XXIV. 
6.  Bruy.  3.  600.  Platina,  246.  In  dignitate  retinenda,  contra  juramenti  solemnis 
religionem.  Alex.  24.  441. 

Continuata  perjuriorum  serie,  non  magis  postrema  quam  priora  ejus  promissa 
gervavit.  Labb.  15.  1331. 

3  Synodo,  juramentum  violatum  occasionem  dedit.  Alexander,  33.  118.  Juleg 
oublia  bientot  ses  sermens.  Mariana,  5.  718.  Boss.  3.  81.  Carranza,  602.  Paolo, 
«.  27  Bruy.  4.  223,  619.  Choisi,  8.  275. 


122  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

church,   therefore,  had  seventeen  perjured   heads,  and  God; 
seventeen  perjured  vicars-general. 

These  heretical  and  abandoned  pontiffs,  according  to  many 
eminent  partizans  of  Romanism,  were  not  true  heads  of  the 
church  or  vicars  of  Jesus.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Jacobatius, 
Leo,  Mirandula,  Baronius,  Du  Pin,  Giannone  and  Geoffry. 
Jacobatius  declares  *  the  election  of  a  heretic  for  a  pope  to  be 
null.'1  Pope  Leo  the  Great,  writing  to  Julian,  excludes  all 
who  deny  the  faith  from  the  pale  of  the  church.  These,  says 
the  Roman  hierarch,  as  '  they  reject  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
are  no  members  of  the  ecclesiastical  body.'  The  partizan  of 
heresy,  therefore,  unfit,  according  to  Leo,  for  being  a  member, 
is  much  more  incapable  of  being  the  head.  Mirandula  men- 
tions one  Roman  pontiff  who,  in  the  excess  of  infidelity,  disbe- 
lieved the  immortality  of  the  soul ;  and  another,  who,  excelling 
in  absurdity,  denied  the  existence  of  God.  These,  the  noble 
author  maintains,  c  could  be  no  popes.'  The  ruffians  who  were 
raised  to  the  Papacy  by  Theodora  and  Marozia,  Baronius  de- 
clares, '  were  no  popes,  but  monsters  ;'  and  the  church,  on 
these  occasions,  was,  according  to  the  Cardinal,  '  without  any 
earthly  head.'  Boniface  the  Seventh,  who,  says  Baronius,  '  was 
a  thief,  a  miscreant,  and  a  murderer,  is  to  be  ranked,  not  among 
the  popes,  but  among  the  notorious  robbers  of  the  age.'  Du 
Pin  and  Giannone,  the  popish  Sorbonnist  and  Civilian,  quote 
and  approve  the  sentence  of  Baronius  the  Roman  Cardinal. 
The  pope,  says  Geoffry,  '  if  he  depart  from  the  faith,  is  no 
pastor.'2  The  spiritual  reign  of  these  sovereign  ruffians  must 
have  created  several  interruptions  in  the  popedom,  and  de- 
stroyed many  necessary  links  in  the  boasted  chain  of*  the 
pontifical  succession.  The  concatenated  series  of  the  Roman 
hierarchs,  therefore,  with  the  unbroken  continuity  of  the 
sacerdotal  authority,  is,  in  the  admission  even  of  Romish  doc- 
tors, a  celebrated  nonentity. 

1  Papa  haereticus,  tanquam  separatus  ab  ecclesia,  non  est  papa,  et  electio  de  eo 
facta  erit  nulla.     Jacob.  III.  p.  107. 

2  Bell.  II.  30.     Canug,  IV.  2.     Bin.  3.  7.     Miran.  th.  4.     Turrecrema,  IV.  20. 
Bpon.  900.  I.  et  985.     II.    Du  Pin,  2.  156.     Giannon,  VII.  6. 

Baronius  ecrit,  qu'alors  Rome  etoit  sans  Pape.     On  ne  voyoit  alors  plus  de» 
Pape«,  mais  des  monstrea.     Giannon,  VII.  5. 
Si  osorbitaverit  a  fide,  jam  non  est  pastor.     Geof.  Bp.  194.  Apol.  385. 


CHAPTER  III. 


COUNCILS. 

THREE  SYSTEMS — ITALIAN    SYSTEM  RECKONS  THE  GENERAL  COUNCILS  AT    EIGHTEEN— 
TEMPORARY    REJECTION    OF    THE     SECOND,    THIRD,    FOURTH,    FIFTH,    SEVENTH,  AND 

TWELFTH      GENERAL      COUNCILS CISALPINE      OR     FRENCH     SCHOOL     REJECTS     THE 

COUNCILS    OF    LYONS,    FLORENCE,    LATERAN,    AND    TRENT ADOPTS    THOSE    OF  PISA, 

CONSTANCE,  BASIL,     AND     THE     SECOND     OF     PISA SYSTEM    OF    A      THIRD    PARTY 

UNIVERSALITY  OF    GENERAL    COUNCILS ITS     CONDITIONS LEGALITY    OF    GENERAL 

COUNCILS — ITS      CONDITIONS CONVOCATION,      PRESIDENCY,      AND    CONFIRMATION 

MEMBERS — UNANIMITY — FREEDOM. 

THE  general  councils  in, ecclesiastical  history  are  as  uncertain 
as  the  Roman  pontiffs.  The  succession  of  the  popes  and  the 
enumeration  of  the  synods  are  attended  with  similar  difficulty, 
and  have  occasioned  similar  diversity  of  opinion.  Gibert  ad 
mits  '  the  uncertainty  of  the  western  oecumenical  councils/ 
Moreri  grants  '  the  disagreement  of  authors  in  their  enumeration. 
One  reckons  more  and  another  less  ;  whilst  some  account  these 
universal  and  approved,  which  others  regard  as  provincial,  na- 
tional, or  condemned.'1  A  full  detail  of  popish  variety  indeed 
would,  on  this  topic,  fill  folios.  This,  however,  is  unnecessary. 
A  statement  of  each  individual's  peculiar  notions,  on  this,  or 
indeed  on  any  other  subject,  would  be  tedious  and  useless. 
The  opinions  entertained  on  this  question,  not  merely  by  a  few 
persons,  but  by  an  influential  party,  are  worthy  of  observation  ; 
and  these  only,  in  the  following  pages,  shall  be  detailed. 

Three  jarring  and  numerous  factions  have,  on  the  subject  of 
general  councils,  divided  and  agitated  the  Romish  communion. 
One  party  reckons  the  general  councils  at  eighteen.  A  second 
faction  counts  the  same  number,  but  adopts  different  councils. 
These  reject  the  councils  of  Lyons,  Florence,  Lateran,  and 
Trent ;  and  adopt,  in  their  stead,  those  of  Pisa,  Constance, 
Basil,  and  the  second  of  Pisa.  A  third  division  omits  the 

1  Numerus  Conciliorum  Generalium,  in  Occidents  habitorum,  est  incertus. 
Gibert,  1.  76.  Tous  lea  auteurs  ne  conviennent  pas  du  nombre  des  conciles  gen6- 
raux ;  leg  uns  en  comptent  plus,  les  autres  moins.  Les  uns  en  reconnoissept  de 
generaux  approuvez,  quo  les  autres  regardent  ou  comme  non  generaux,  ou  comma 
uon  approuvez.  M->reri,  3.  539. 


124  THE    VARIATIONS    OF   POPERY. 

whole  or  a  part  of  the  councils  which  intervened  between  the 
eighth  and  sixteenth  of  these  general  conventions  The  whole 
of  these  are  omitted  by  Clement,  Abrahamus,  and  Pole,  and  a 
part  by  Sixtus,  Carranza,  Silvius,  and  the  council  of  Constance. 

One  party  in  the  popish  communion  reckons  the  general 
councils  at  eighteen.  Of  these,  five  met  respectively  at  Ephesus, 
Chalcedon,  Vienna,  Florence,  and  Trent ;  two  convened  at 
Nicaea,  two  at  Lyons,  four  at  Constantinople,  and  five  at  the 
Lateran.  The  patrons  of  this  enumeration  are,  in  general,  the 
Italian  faction,  headed  by  the  pope,  and  maintaining  his  temporal 
as  well  as  his  spiritual  authority.  Baronius  and  Bellarmine  in 
particular,  have  patronized  this  scheme  with  learning  and 
ability,  but  with  a  total  disregard  of  all  honour  and  honesty. 

Bellarmine,  besides  the  eighteen  which  are  approved,  reckons 
eight  general  councils  which  are  reprobated,  and  six  which  are 
partly  admitted  and  partly  rejected.  One,  which  is  the  Pisan — • 
strange  to  tell — is  neither  adopted  nor  proscribed.  Bellarmine's 
distinctions  and  decisions  indeed  are  badly  calculated  to  establish 
the  authority  of  councils.  His  hair-breadth  distinctions  and 
arbitrary  decisions,  on  the  contrary,  tend  only  to  overthrow  all 
confidence  in  his  determinations  and  in  universal  councils.1 

All  the  eighteen,  however,  were  not  accounted  valid  or 
unerring  on  their  first  publication.  Six,  marked  now  with  the 
seal  of  approbation  and  infallibility,  were,  for  a  long  series  of 
time,  in  whole  or  in  part,  rejected  by  a  part  or  by  the  whole 
of  Christendom.  These  are  the  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth, 
seventh,  and  twelfth  general  councils.  The  canons  of  the 
second,  according  to  Alexander  and  Thomassin,  were  not  re- 
ceived by  the  Latins  till  the  Lateran  council  in  1215,  a  period 
of  834  years  after  their  promulgation.  Its  faith  indeed,  in 
opposition  to  Macedonianism,  corresponded  with  that  of  the 
westerns,  and  was,  in  consequence,  admitted  by  Damasus, 
Gelasius,  and  Gregory.  Its  creed,  however,  was  recognized 
only  on  the  authority  of  divine  revelation  and  ancient  faith. 
Leo  rejected  its  canons.  Simplicius  and  Felix,  enumerating 
the  councils  which  they  acknowledged,  mention  only  those  of* 
Nicasa,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon.  Gregory  the  Great  declared 
that  the  Roman  church  possessed  neither  the  acts  nor  canons 
of  the  Byzantine  assembly,  though  his  infallibility,  in  glorious 
inconsistency,  elsewhere  affirmed  that  he  esteemed  the  four 
oecumenical  councils  of  Nicaaa,  Ephesus,  Constantinople,  and 
Chalcedon  as  the  four  gospels.2 

i  Bellar.  I.  5—7. 

8  Alex.  7.  235.     9.  155.     Thorn.  2. 15.     Pithou,  29.     Crabb.I.  991.     Godeau.  4 
498.     Moreri,  3,  592. 


IN    THE    RECEPTION    OF    COUNCILS.  125 

The  Eph.esian  synod  was  anathematized,  and,  lor  seveial 
years,  rejected  by  the  orientals.  Its  universality,  during  its 
celebration,  consisted  in  a  few  Asians  and  Egyptians.  These 
being  assembled,  the  sainted  Cyril,  who  presided,  and  who, 
actuated  by  prejudice  and  temerity,  precipitated  the  first  ses- 
sion, condemned  Nestorius,  before  the  arrival  of  the  westerns 
or  orientals,  and  contrary  to  all  justice  or  even  decency.  Sixty- 
eight  bishops,  and  Count  Candidian,  who  represented  the 
emperor,  protested  against  Cyril's  conduct,  and  absented  them- 
selves from  his  cabal.  The  remainder,  reduced  to  160,  con- 
stituted a  hopeful  universality,  a  dashing  general  council,  and 
a  blessed  representation  of  the  church.  Candidian,  who 
wielded  the  civil  and  military  authority,  reasoned  when  he 
should  have  punished  the  sainted  ruffian  and  his  lawless  myr- 
midons. Cyril's  faction,  however,  contemptible  as  it  was,  in 
the  course  of  one  day,  tried,  and  deposed  Nestorius,  patriarch 
of  Constantinople.1 

John,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  celebrated  for  his  wisdom  and 
piety,  arrived  five  days  after  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius, 
accompanied  by  twenty-six  suffragans.  His  arrival  was  fol- 
lowed by  one  of  the  most  distinguished  cursing-matches  of 
antiquity.  The  sacred  bishops,  on  occasions  of  this  kind,  had 
immediate  recourse  to  cursing,  which  uniformly  gave  ease  to 
their  conscience  and  vent  to  their  zeal.  The  holy  men,  for 
comfort,  displayed  their  devotion  in  a  litany  of  execrations. 
Their  ardent  piety  and  benevolence,  struggling  for  utterance, 
burst  in  ebullitions  of  anathemas.  Cyril  and  Nestorius,  prior 
to  the  meeting  of  the  council,  had,  in  the  spirit  of  their  MASTER, 
exchanged  mutual  imprecations.  The  saint,  in  an  Alexandrian 
synod,  in  430,  had  launched  twelve  anathemas  at  the  heretic  ; 
and  the  heretic,  inclined  to  make  some  return,  thanked  the  saint 
in  kind,  and  with  a  corresponding  number  of  these  inverted 
blessings.  John  and  Cyril,  now  at  Ephesus,  engaged  in  similar 
warfare.  John  and  his  partizans,  amounting  to  fifty,  posted  at 
the  Ephesian  inn,  and  informed  by  Caiididian  of  the  transactions 
of  the  adverse  party,  congratulated  Cyril,  Memnon,  and  their 
accomplices  with  deposition  and  excommunication.  Nestorius, 
says  Godeau,  *  instead  of  recognizing  the  hand  of  God  in  the 
thunderbolts  of  the  council,  continued,  with  redoubled  fury  to 
rebel  against  the  divine  majesty.'  This  honour  Cyril  and  his 
faction,  entrenched  in  Mary's  church,  repaid  with  cordiality  and 
devotion.2  The  spiritual  artillery  continued,  for  some  time,  to 

1  Socrat.  VII.  34.     Evag.  I.  3.  4.     Liberatus,  c.  IV.     Spon.  430.  V.     Crabb   1 
634.     Godeaii.  3.  292,  302,  308. 

»  Labb.  3.  946,  971.     Crabb.  1.  534,     Godeau,  3.  301.     Libera.  c.  VI. 


126  THE    VARIATIONS    OF   POPERY  I 

fulminate  mutual  anathemas  ;  and  these  reciprocal  benedictions 
were  the  only  tokens  of  esteem  which  the  sacred  synods,  in 
their  mutual  salutations,  condescended  to  interchange. 

The  Greeks  called  the  second  Ephesian  council  a  gang  of 
felons,  and  the  designation  would,  with  equal  propriety,  have 
characterized  the  former  assembly,  which,  if  possible,  excelled 
its  successor  in  all  the  arts  of  villany.  The  character  of  Cyril 
and  the  council  have  been  portrayed,  in  strong  colours,  by  the 
orientals,  Candidian,  Isidorus,  and  Gennadius.  The  orientals 
called  Cyril's  decision  tyranny  and  heretical  perfidy.  Can- 
didian represented  the  Ephesian  transactions  as  contrary  to  all 
order  and  regularity.  Isidorus  accused  Cyril  of  rashness,  and 
the  Ephesians  of  seeking  revenge  instead  of  promoting  truth 
or  piety.  Gennadius  declared  Cyril  guilty  of  blasphemy; 
while  Dionysius,  who  wrote  in  527,  and  whose  collection  had 
the  greatest  authority  in  the  west,  entirely  omits  the  Ephesian 
council.1 

The  contest  was,  at  last,  determined  by  the  emperor.  The 
faith,  which,  with  animosity  but  without  decision,  had  been 
debated  by  the  ecclesiastical  body,  was,  at  length,  adjusted  by 
the  civil  authority.  The  unity  of  the  mediator's  person  was, 
properly  speaking,  established,  not  by  the  church  but  by  the 
state.  The  appeal  was,  not  to  the  Pope,  but  to  the  emperor  ; 
and  the  synodal  decision  was  reviewed,  not  by  Celestin  but  by 
Theodosius.  The  sovereign  and  his  courtiers,  after  a  protracted 
and  varying  negociation,  reinstated  Cyril  and  banished  Nesto- 
rius.  The  orientals,  however,  persevered  for  several  years  in 
opposition.  But  the  oriental  diocese,  in  the  end,  was  reduced 
to  submission,  and  the  church  to  unity  ;  not  indeed  by  ecclesi- 
astical authority,  but  by  imperial  power.2 

The  Latins  proscribed  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of  the  Chal- 
cedonian  council,  which  conferred  the  same  honour  on  the 
Byzantine  patriarch  as  on  the  Roman  pontiff.  Leo  and  after 
him  Simplicius  opposed  it  with  nil  their  might,  but  without  any 
success,  and  confirmed  only  the  faith  of  the  council.  Its 
authority,  in  consequence,  has  been  rejected  by  the  Latins : 
though  Pelagius,  Gregory,  Pascal,  and  Boniface  acknowledged 
the  first  four  councils.8 

The  second  Byzantine  or  fifth  general  council,under  Justinian, 
was,  for  some  time,  rejected  by  Pope  Vigilius,  by  the  Africans, 

1  Crabb.  1.  552.  Bruy.  1.  214.  Du  Pin,  1.  645.  Isid.  1.  310.  Da  Pin,  1.  407 
424.  Facun.  II.  4.  Giann.  III.  6. 

a  Evag.  I.  5.     Libera.  c.  VI.     Labo.  3.  574.     Godeau,  3.310. 

3  Nullum  unquam  potuerunt  nostrum  obtinere  consensual.  Leo,  Ep.  53.  Li» 
berate,  c.  XIII.  Sine  consensu  Papae  et  legatorum  &jus.  Canisius,  4, 69.  Carranxa, 
267.  Pithou  14. 


IN    THE    RECEPTION    OF    COUNCILS.  127 

and  by  many  in  Illyria,  Italy,  Liguria,  Tuscany,  Istria,  France, 
Spain,  and  Ireland.  The  emperor  convened  this  congress 
against  the  three  chapters,  a  momentous  subject,  composed  by 
Theodoret,  Ibas,  and  Theodoras.  Vigilius,  with  sixteen  bishops 
and  three  deacons  from  Italy,  Africa,  and  the  east,  was  in  Con- 
stantinople during  the  several  sessions  of  the  council,  and 
though  invited,  refused  to  attend.  But  the  synod,  notwith- 
standing, proceeded  in  its  task.  His  infallibility,  supported  by 
his  partizans,  opposed  the  emperor  and  council,  but  in  vain, 
with  all  his  pontifical  power  and  authority.  He  formed  his 
bishops  and  deacons  into  a  separate  synod,  issued  a  constitution 
defending,  though  in  qualified  terms,  the  three  chapters  and 
their  authors,  and  interdicting  by  the  authority  of  the  holy, 
apostolic  see,  all  further  discussion  on  the  subject.  The  coun- 
cil, in  reply,  pronounced  anathemas  against  the  persons  and 
defenders  of  Ibas,  Theodoret,  and  Theodorus.  His  holiness, 
therefore,  being  a  partizan  of  these  authors,  who  were  con- 
demned by  the  council,  was  anathematized  for  abetting  heresy. 
Vigilius  refused  to  sanction  the  decision  of  the  synod,  and  Jus- 
tinian, without  any  ceremony,  banished  his  holiness.  The 
pontiff's  expatriation  brightened  his  understanding,  and  enabled 
him  to  see  the  subject  in  a  new  point  of  view.  His  infallibility, 
through  the  happy  effect  of  exile  in  illuminating  his  intellect, 
felt  it  his  duty  to  approve  what  he  had  formerly  condemned.1 
Heresy,  by  the  magic  touch  of  imperial  power,  was,  by  a  speedy 
transformation,  converted  into  Catholicism,  and  error,  by  the 
same  process,  transubstantiated  into  orthodoxy. 

The  Italians,  Tuscans,  Ligurians,  Istrians,  French,  Spanish, 
Illyrians,  and  Africans,  who  had  the  effrontery  to  gainsay  the 
will  of  the  emperor,  were,  like  the  vicar-general  of  God,  con- 
verted by  the  sword  of  Justinian.  Reparatus  the  Carthaginian 
bishop  was  dismissed,  and  Primasius,  by  imperial  authority, 
was  substituted,  and  the  Africans,  in  general,  submitted.  The 
Italian  clergy  who  opposed,  were  banished.  The  French 
yielded  to  the  storm.  But  the  Ligurians,  and  Istrians,  who 
were  under  the  dominion  of  the  Lombards,  and,  in  consequence, 
feared  no  persecution  from  the  emperor,  avowed  a  bolder  and 
more  protracted  opposition.  The  schism,  from  its  commence 
ment  till  the  end,  lasted  near  a  century.2 

The  seventh  general  council,  which  assembled  at  Nicaea,  in 
favour  of  image-worship,  was  disclaimed  for  more  than  a  cen- 
tury. Irene's  son  Constantine,  in  the  east,  on  obtaining  a 
shadow  of  power,  proceeded,  saysPlatina,  to  repeal  the  synodal 

1  Alex.  12.  81,     Maimb.  42.     Crabb,  2.  91. 
•  Godeau,  4   159,  446.     Bmy.  1.  343. 


128  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

and  imperial  laws  which  countenanced  emblematic  worship 
Leo,  Michael,  and  Theophilus  followed  Constantine's  example, 
with  determined  resolution  and  signal  effect.  Two  councils, 
one  in  814  and  the  other  in  821,  decided  against  the  Nicene 
assembly.  The  Nicene  acts  remained  in  a  state  of  proscription 
among  the  Greeks,  till  the  final  establishment  of  idolatry  by 
the  Empress  Theodora.1 

The  Nicene  decisions  were  disclaimed  by  the  western  emperor 
and  the  Latin  church.  The  Caroline  books,  with  the  Parisian 
and  Frankfortian  councils,  showed  the  minds  of  the  Latins  in 
unequivocal  terms.  The  council  of  Frankfort  exhibited  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  western  clergy  from  England,  Italy,  France, 
and  Germany  ;  and  amounted  in  all  to  three  hundred.  Ac- 
cording to  Alexander,  'the  French  did  not,  in  former  times, 
reckon  the  second  Nicene  among  the  general  councils.'  The 
Frankfortians,  say  Aventin,  Hincmar,  and  Regina,  rescinded 
the  decisions  of  the  false  Grecian  Synod  in  favour  of  image- 
worship.  Ivo  and  Aimon  also  proscribed  this  convention. 
Nicholas  and  Adrian,  who  lived,  the  one  seventy-five  and  the 
other  eighty  years  after  the  Nicene  assembly,  reckon  only  six 
general  councils.2  The  Nicene  congress,  therefore,  was  ex- 
cluded by  these  pontiffs.  The  cabal  of  Nicaea,  for  it  deserves 
no  better  name,  was,  in  this  manner,  accounted,  for  a  series  of 
years,  a  mere  Grecian  synod  and  of  no  general  authority.  But 
its  merits,  it  seems,  grew  with  its  age,  and,  in  process  of  time, 
the  patrons  of  Romanism  and  idolatry  began  to  invest  the  con- 
temptible junto  with  the  attributes  of  universality,  holiness,  and 
infallibility. 

The  canons  of  the  twelfth  general  council,  which  met  at  the 
Lateran  palace  in  1215,  lay,  for  322  years,  neglected  and  un- 
known. This  celebrated  ecclesiastical  congress  has,  in  latter 
days,  occasioned  a  wonderful  diversity  of  opinion.  The 
councils  of  Oxford,  Constance,  and  Trent  maintained  its  uni- 
versality and  authority.  Bellarmine  supported  its  ecumenicity, 
accounted  its  rejection  a  heresy,  and  called  Barclay,  who  re- 
flected on  its  third  canon,  a  pagan  and  a  publican.  Perron, 
Possevin,  and  Alexander  entertained  a  high  opinion  of  it.  But 
this  flattering  picture  is  reversed  by  Paris,  Nauclerus,  Platina, 
Godefrid,  Antony,  Severin,  Du  Pin,  and  Barclay.  The 

Platin.  107.  Crabb.  2.  457.  Bin.  6.  232.  Theod.  Ep.  XV. 
9  Nicaena  Secunda  Synodus  olim  a  Gallis  inter  oecumenicos  non  fuit.  Alex.  25. 
630.  In  Frankfordiensi  concilio  scita  Graecorum  de  adorandis  imaginibus  rescissa 
Bimt.  Aven.  337.  Pseudo-synodus  Graecorum  destructa  est.  Hincm.  c.  XX. 
Mabillon,  2.  495.  Pithou,  18.  Omnium  sanctorum  atque  venerandorum  sex  con- 
ciliomm  autoritate.  Labb.  9.  1309.  Nihil  audemus  praodicare,  quod  possit 
Nicaeno  concilio,  et  quinque  caeteronim  conciliorum  regulis  obviare.  Adrian,  II 
in  Du  Pin,  395. 


IN    THE    RECEPTION    OF    COUNCILS. 

council,  according  to  these  historians  and  critics,  did  nothing  ; 
and  ended  in  laughter  and  mockery.  Its  canons,  in  all  their 
worth  or  worthlessness,  rested,  for  more  than  three  centuries, 
in  a  state  of  dormancy,  unknown  to  pontiff,  cardinal,  bishop, 
critic,  or  historian  ;  and  Christendom  certainly  would  have  been 
at  no  loss,  had  they  slept  till  eternity.  The  canons,  such  as 
they  are,  were  not,  as  might  have  been  expected,  printed  at  last 
from  a  manuscript  in  the  Vatican  or  from  the  Pope's  own 
library ;  but  extracted,  in  the  year  1537  by  Cochlaeus,  a  Lu- 
theran, from  a  German  library,  and  transmitted  to  Colonia  for 
insertion  in  Crabb's  collection  of  the  councils,  though  they  are 
not  mentioned  in  Merlin's  edition  of  1535.1  The  document,  in 
this  manner,  lay  concealed  for  ages ;  and  Christendom  was  de- 
frauded of  its  -precious  instruction  till  after  the  reformation, 
when  its  dazzling  truths,  through  the  research  of  a  Protestant 
theologian,  burst,  in  all  their  splendour  and  infallibility,  on  an 
admiring  and  enlightened  world.  The  inquisition,  in  particular, 
must  have  felt  a  great  want  of  its  third  canon,  which  teaches 
the  most  approved  and  efficient  means  of  persecution  and  ex- 
tirpation of  heresy ;  though,  to  do  the  inquisitors  justice,  they 
could  rack  the  suspected  in  the  secret  cell,  and  burn  the 
heretical  at  a  public  act  of  faith,  in  a  Christian  spirit  and  with 
an  edifying  effect,  without  the  direction  of  the  infallible  Lateran 
council. 

Such  is  the  scheme  of  the  Italian  faction  and  their  partizans 
on  general  councils,  and  such  the  diversity  of  opinion  on  this 
subject.  A  second  party  rejects  the  councils  of  Lyons, 
Florence,  Lateran,  and  Trent.  These,  in  general,  are  the 
French  school,  who  disclaim  pontifical  infallibility  and  deposi- 
tion of  kings. 

The  French  reject  the  council  of  Lyons,  which  is  the 
thirteenth  in  the  plan  of  the  Italian  school.  The  patrons  of 
pontifical  despotism  and  regal  deposition  extol  this  assembly  to 
the  sky.  Their  opponents,  on  the  contrary,  load  it  with 
ridicule  and  contempt.  Paris,  Albert,  Trithemius,  Platina, 
and  Palmerius  deny  its  universality  ;  and  the  same  idea  was 
entertained  by  Launoy,  Du  Pin,  and  Widrington.  Nicolin, 
Silvius,  Sixtus,  and  Carranza,  in  their  collections,  have  omitted 
it  as  unworthy  of  general  or  public  attention.  Onuphrius,  says 
Du  Pin,  '  seems  to  have  been  the  first  who  invested  this  assem- 
bly with  universality.'2 


1  Alex.  21.  500,  595.     Platina,  in  Inn.  III.     Du  Pin,  572.     Walsh,  65,     Pan*, 
262.     Doyle,  503. 
«  Launoy,   ad  Raym.     Platin.  in  Inn.  IV.     Giannon,   XVII.  3.     Du  Pin.  551 

Caron,  82. 

9 


J  30  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

The  French  also  reject  the  Florentine  council,  which  they 
call  a  conventicle,  neither  general  nor  lawful.  Such  have  been 
the  representations  of  Alexander,  Du  Pin,  and  Moreri.1  The 
French  and  Italians  differed  on  this  subject  in  the  council  of 
Trent.  The  Italians  asserted  its  universality ;  while  the  French 
refused  this  title  to  an  assembly,  which,  they  said,  was  cele- 
brated by  a  few  Italians  and  four  Grecians.  The  Florentians 
raised  the  pontiff  above  a  council,  and,  in  consequence,  offended 
the  Gallicans,  who  place  the  supremacy  in  an  universal  and 
lawful  synod.  The  assembly  of  Florence,  besides,  was  contem- 
porary with  that  of  Basil,  which,  in  the  French  account,  was 
general ;  and  two  general  councils,  it  is  plain,  could  not  coexist 
in  Christendom. 

The  fifth  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1512,  under  Julius  and 
Leo,  is,  in  a  particular  manner,  obnoxious  to  the  French  nation. 
Its  authority  was  opposed  by  the  French  king,  clergy,  and  par- 
liament. The  French,  according  to  Gibert  and  Moreri,  never 
accounted  the  Lateran  assembly  general.  Lewis  the  Twelfth, 
indeed,  who  had  patronized  the  synod  of  Pisa  in  opposition  to 
that  of  the  Lateran,  submitted,  in  1513,  to  the  latter  convention , 
which,  in  accordance  with  his  majesty's  will,  annulled  the 
pragmatic  sanction  and  substituted  the  concordat.  But  the 
French  people  continued  determined  and  steady.  The  parlia- 
ment, indeed,  were  compelled  to  register  the  concordat ;  but 
with  reiterated  protestations  that  they  acted  by  the  express 
command  of  the  monarch,  and  neither  authorised  nor  approved 
its  publication.  The  Parisian  university,  in  particular,  distin- 
guished for  its  learning  and  independence,  opposed  Lewis,  Leo, 
the  council,  and  the  concordat.  This  faculty  took  sufficient 
liberty  with  the  pontiff  and  his  convention,  accused  him  of 
acting  for  the  destruction  of  Catholicism,  the  divine  laws,  and 
the  sacred  canons  ;  and  boldly  appealed  from  the  papal  and 
synodal  enactments  to  a  wiser  pope,  and  to  a  free  and  lawful 
council.  The  appeal,  in  1517,  was  printed  and  posted  in  the 
cross  ways  and  in  the  most  public  places  of  the  city.  The 
French  king,  also,  in  1612,  abandoned  the  council  of  the 
Lateran,  which  the  French,  in  the  most  decided  manner,  con- 
tinued to  disclaim.2 

The  Council  of  Trent  was  not  only  rejected  in  France,  but 
also  in  Spain,  Flanders,  Naples,  part  of  Ireland,  and  really 
though  not  formally  in  Germany.  Its  doctrinal  decisions, 

1  Florentimim  nee  legitimum,  nee  generale,  agnoscitur.  Alex.  25,  415.  Floren- 
timun,  nee  oecumenicura  nee  generate,  rejicitur.  Du  Pin,  421.  On  n'y  met  point 
a:i  rang  des  conciles  generaux,  le  cinquieme  concile  de  Latran  nicelai  de  Florence 
Moreri.  3.  i>39.  Daniel,  6.  J  53.  Paolo,  VII. 

*  Gibert,  1.  106.     Moreri,  3.  558.     Du  Pin,  430.    Bruy  4.  400. 


IN    THE    RECEPTION    OF    COUNCILS.  131 

indeed,  embodied  the  prior  faith  of  these  kingdoms  ,  and, 
therefore,  was  not  opposed.  The  theology,  however,  inculcated 
at  Trent,  was  recognized,  not  on  the  authority  of  that  assembly, 
but  on  the  authority  of  antiquity  and  former  reception.  The 
council  was  utterly  exploded  by  the  French,  on  account  of  its 
canons  of  discipline  and  reformation.  The  French,  says  Peta- 
vius  and  Moreri,  respected  the  faith  of  this  assembly,  but 
disclaimed  its  discipline.  The  cardinal  of  Lorraine,  who 
attended  at  Trent,  was,  on  his  return,  reprehended  by  the  king, 
clergy,  and  the  parliament,  for  consenting  to  many  things  pre- 
judicial to  the  French  nation.  The  discord  and  intrigues  of  the 
Trentine  theologians  became  the  subject  of  jest,  satire,  ridicule, 
and  merriment.  The  prelatical  convention  of  Trent,  it  was 
said,  in  proverbial  but  profane  wit,  excelled  the  apostolic  council 
of  Jerusalem.  The  ancient  assembly  required  the  aid  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  while  the  modern  synod  was  independent  of  such 
assistance,  and  could  determine  by  human  wisdom  and  arbitrary 
dictation.1 

Its  publication  was  opposed  by  many  persons  and  arguments. 
The  Parisian  parliament  notified  twenty-three  of  its  reforming 
and  disciplinarian  canons,  which  became  the  topic  of  public 
animadversion ;  and  which,  it  was  alleged,  were  repugnant  to 
the  regal  authority,  the  common  law,  and  the  public  good. 
The  canons,  it  was  maintained,  which  countenanced  the  excom- 
munication and  deposition  of  kings,  the  ecclesiastical  punishment 
of  laymen  by  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  the  superiority  of  the 
pope  above  a  general  council,  tended  to  extend  the  spiritual 
authority  of  the  church,  and  to  diminish  the  civil  power  of  the 
state.  Many  attempts  were  made  to  effect  its  reception  in  the 
French  dominions,  but  in  vain.  The  Roman  hierarchs  directed 
all  their  energy  to  this  end  ;  and  engaged,  on  one  occasion,  the 
interest  of  the  emperor  of  Germany,  the  king  of  Spain,  and 
the  duke  of  Savoy.  The  Parisian  faculty,  also,  in  those  days 
of  its  degeneracy,  used  their  influence  in  favour  of  the  Roman 
court.  The  united  influence  of  the  pope,  the  emperor,  the 
king,  the  duke,  and  the  Sorbonne,  in  1614,  procured  the  con- 
sent of  the  French  nobility  and  clergy,  but  the  project  was 
frustrated  by  the  firmness  of  the  Commons.  The  French 
nation,  in  consequence,  to  the  present  day,  disclaim  the  authority 
of  the  general,  infallible,  holy,  Roman  council  of  Trent.2 

The  council  of  Trent  underwent  similar  treatment  in  the 
kingdom  of  Spain.  Philip,  indeed,  the  king  of  the  Spanish 

1  Canones  in  Gallia  de   dogmate   venerantur,   de   disciplina  vero  respuuntur, 
Petavius,  2.   249.     Le  concile  de  Trente  n'y  est  point  recu  pour  la  discipline 
Moreri,  3.  539.     Paolo,  2.  685.     Gibert,  1.  148. 

2  Paolo,  2.  693.     Thuan.     CV.  21.     Dan.  9.  321. 

9* 


132  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

nation,  displayed,  on  the  occasion,  a  splendid  specimen  of 
policy.  The  Spanish  monarch  wished  to  gratify  the  Roman 
pontiff,  and,  at  the  same  time,  reject  the  Trentine  council.  The 
sovereign,  therefore,  made  a  show  of  publishing  it,  and  never- 
theless found  means  of  security  against  its  obnoxious  canons 
of  discipline  and  of  reformation.  These  he  was  determined 
to  repel,  but  with  wary  circumspection.  He  convened  the 
Spanish  clergy  in  1564,  in  the  synods  of  Salamanca,  Toledo, 
Saragossa,  Seville,  and  Valentia ;  and  sent  deputies  to  preside 
in  these  conventions.  AU,  in  consequence,  was  carried,  in 
these  synods,  according  to  the  dictation  of  the  king's  council. 
The  result  was,  that  in  Spain,  the  land  of  Catholicism,  whose, 
sovereigns  were  the  most  obsequious  servants  of  the  Roman 
pontiff,  the  universal,  holy,  Roman  synod  was  acknowledged 
only  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  the  prerogatives  of  the  king, 
the  privileges  of  the  people,  and  the  laws  of  the  nation.1 

Similar  decisions  were  enacted  in  the  Netherlands.  Margaret, 
duchess  of  Parma,  was,  at  this  time,  governess  of  these  provinces. 
She  consulted  the  magistracy,  clergy,  and  royal  council,  who 
represented  the  Trentine  canons  of  reformation  as  unfriendly  to 
the  privileges  and  usages  of  the  Belgian  dominions.  These 
counsellors  also  feared  popular  commotions,  if  the  council  were 
published  without  any  restriction.  Its  publication,  therefore, 
was  accompanied  with  a  declaration,  that  its  reception  would 
be  aUowed  to  effect  no  innovation  in  the  laws  and  customs  of 
the  provinces.  The  duke  of  Alba,  the  Neapolitan  viceroy  in 
1594,  published  the  council  in  the  Neapolitan  dominions  of 
Spain,  with  similar  provisions  against  ah1  innovation.2 

The  Trentine  discipline  is  also  excluded  from  part  of  Ireland. 
Its  faith,  says  Doyle,  in  his  parliamentary  evidence,  is  admitted 
through  the  whole  island,  but  not  its  discipline.  Its  canons  on 
matrimony,  for  example,  have  obtained  only  a  partial  reception. 
The  provincial  bishops  assembled  for  the  purpose  of  delibera- 
ting whether  the  Trentine  discipline  would  be  useful.  Those 
who  concluded  in  favour  of  its  utility  published  a  declaration 
to  that  effect  in  each  chapel ;  and  the  annunciation  gave  it 
validity  in  the  bounds  of  their  jurisdiction.  Those  who  decided 
against  its  utility,  omitted  its  publication ;  and  the  Trentine 
canons,  were  excluded  from  the  limits  of  their  ecclesiastical 
authority.3  The  holy  council,  in  this  manner,  was  subjected  to  a 

Eartial  exclusion  even  from  the  Island  of  Saints.     The  Emerald 
sle  itself  enjoys  only  in  part  the  sacred  canons,  which  the  Irish 
prelacy,  in  some  provinces,  accounted  and  declared  useless. 

1  Giannon,  XXXIII.  3.     Paolo,  2.  685.     Slevin,  226. 

*  Van  Espen,  c.  II.     Giannon,  xxxiii.  3.  Paolo,  2,  686.     Gibert,  1.  146. 

»  Doyle,  385 


RECEPTION    OP    THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT.  133 

The  friends  of  the  reformation  in  Germany  detested  the  faith 
of  Trent,  and  the  friends  of  Romanism  disliked  its  discipline. 
The  Emperor,  indeed,  allowed  it  a  formal  reception  in  his  do- 
minions. But  the  admission,  clogged  as  it  was  with  many 
restrictions,  was  rather  nominal  than  real.  Its  recognition  was 
by  no  means  uniform;  and  those  who  acknowledged  its  authority 
interpreted  its  canons  as  they  pleased.1 

The  French,  in  this  manner,  dismissing  the  councils  of  Lyons, 
Florence,  Lateran,  and  Trent,  adopt  those  of  Pisa,  Constance, 
Basil,  and  the  second  of  Pisa.  The  French,  says  Moreri, 
'  recognize,  as  general,  the  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and 
Basil.'2  The  Pisan  assembly  in  1409  has  occasioned  a  variety 
of  opinions.  Some  have  denied  its  universality.  Its  name  is 
not  found  among  the  eighteen  approved  by  the  Italians  ;  and  its 
authority  has  been  rejected  by  Cajetan,  Antoninus,  Sanderus, 
and  Raynald.  Antoninus  endeavours  to  throw  contempt  on  this 
assembly  by  calling  it  an  unlawful  conventicle.  The  statement 
of  Petavius,  respecting  this  congress  is  amusing.  The  Pisan 
assembly,  says  this  author,  was,  as  it  were,  a  general  council.3 
Bellarmine  characterizes  it  as  neither  approved  nor  condemned.4 
This  champion  of  Romanism  and  his  partizans  cannot  decide, 
whether  this  equivocal  convention  should  be  stajnped  with  the 
seal  of  infallibility  or  marked  with  the  signature  of  reprobation. 
Its  decisions  are  consigned,  according  to  this  celebrated  polemic 
and  his  minions,  to  float  on  the  ocean  of  uncertainty,  and  to  be 
treated  with  esteem  or  contempt  at  the  suggestion  of  caprice  or 
partiality.  The  unfortunate  synod,  which  no  person,  in  Bellar- 
mine's  system,  is  either  to  own  or  disown,  is  left,  like  a  peaceful 
and  insulated  state,  without  any  alliance,  either  offensive  or 
defensive,  among  belligerent  powers,  to  defend  its  own  frontiers 
or  to  maintain  an  armed  neutrality.  Bellarmine,  however,  had 
reasons  for  his  moderation  or  indecision.  The  Pisans  deposed 
Gregory  and  Benedict  for  heresy  and  schism,  and  elected  Alex- 
ander, who  has  been  recognized  as  the  rightful  pontiff  and  a 
necessary  link  in  the  unbroken  chain  of  the  pontifical  succession. 
Bellarmine,  had  he  approved  the  Pisan  assembly,  would,  con- 
trary to  his  principles,  have  admitted  the  supremacy  of  a  general 
council  and  its  authority  to  degrade  a  Roman  pontiff.  Had  the 
cardinal  disapproved,  he  would  have  acknowledged  the  inva- 
lidity of  Alexander's  election,  and  dismissed  God's  vicar-general 

1  Paolo,  2.  697. 

3  En  France,  on  reconnoit  pour  generaux,  les  Conciles  de  Constance,  de  Pise, 
et  de  Bale.  Moreri,  3,  539. 

3  Pisanum,  tanquam  Generale  convocation  cardinalibus.  Pectavius,  2.  249. 
Cajetan  c.  XI.  Antonius,  c.  V.  Sanderus,  VIII. 

*  Generale  nee  approbatum,  nee  reprobatum.  videtur  esse  Concilium  Pisanum. 
Bell.  I.  8. 


J54  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

from  the  seiies  of  the  pontifical  succession.  The  Jesuit,  there* 
fore,  like  an  honest  man,  had  recourse  to  an  expedient  and  left 
the  Pisans  to  their  liberty. 

The  French,  however,  dissenting  from  Bellarminism,  claim 
the  Pisan  assembly  as  their  ally  :  and  acknowledge  its  univer- 
sality and  authority,  which  have  been  advocated  by  Du  Pin, 
Moreri,  Alexander,  and  other  historians.  These  authors  record 
its  convocation  from  all  Christendom,  and  confirmation  by  pope 
Alexander.1 

The  universality  of  the  Constantian  council  is  maintained  in 
the  French  school.  A  variety  of  conflicting  opinions,  indeed, 
has  been  entertained  on  the  ecumenicity  of  this  assembly. 
Bosius  and  Cotton  would  allow  it  neither  a  total  or  partial 
generality.  Cardinal  Cautarin  excluded  it  from  his  compendium 
of  councils,  and  pope  Sixtus  from  his  paintings  and  inscriptions 
in  the  Vatican.  The  Florentian  and  Lateran  conventions 
reprobated  its  definition  of  the  superiority  of  a  council  above 
a  pope.  Its  authority  is  disregarded  in  Spain,  Portugal,  and 
the  nations  under  their  control.  The  Italians  in  the  council  of 
Trent,  represented  it  as  in  part  approved  and  in  part  con- 
demned ;  and  the  Italian  system  on  this  subject  has  been 
adopted  by  Bellarmine,  Canus,  Cajetan,  and  Duviil.  Baptista, 
in  the  Trentine  assembly,  extolled  the  Constantian,  says  Paolo, 
above  all  other  councils.  The  French,  in  the  same  synod, 
declared  it  general  in  all  its  sessions  from  beginning  to  end ;  and 
this  declaration  has  been  repeated  by  Lorrain,  L annoy,  Alex- 
ander, Moreri,  Carranza,  and  Du  Pin.  The  Constantian  council, 
says  Alexander,  '  represented  the  universal  church,  arid  among 
the  French  is  accounted  general  in  all  its  parts.'  Pope  Martin 
confirmed  it,  and,  by  his  sanction,  sealed  it  with  infallibility.2 

The  French  school  also  recognized  the  Basilian  council  as 
general.  The  Basilians  have  met  with  much  opposition  and 
much  support,  with  many  enemies  and  many  friends.  Popes 
and  councils,  supported  by  many  critics  and  theologians,  such 
as  Bellarmine",  Turrecrema,  Cajetan,  Sanderus,  Raynald, 
Bzovius,  and  Duval,  declaimed  with  fury  against  its  authority, 
and  execrated  its  decisions.  Eugenius  the  Fourth  assailed  it. 
with  red  hot  anathemas,  and  cursed  its  assembled  fathers,  in 
colonel  Bath's  elegant  style,  with  '  great  dignity  of  expression 
and  emphasis  of  judgment.'  The  sacred  synod,  though  exe- 
crated, were  loth  to  be  in  debt,  and  made  a  suitable  return. 
The  holy  fathers  declared  his  infallibility  guilty  of  contumacy, 

'  Du  Pin,  403.     Moreri,  3.  539.     Alex.  24,  551. 

2  Apud  Gallos,  Constantiense  Concilium,  in  omnibus  suis  partibus,  oecumemcutt 
babetur.  Alex  25.  415.  Du  Pin,  421.  Bell.  1.  7.  Paolo,  VI.  et  VIT. 


RECEPTION  OF  THE  COUNCILS  OF  PISA  AND  CONSTANCE.     135 

pertinacity,  rebellion,  incorrigibility,  disobedience,  simuny, 
schism,  heresy,  desertion  from  the  faith,  violation  of  the  canons, 
scandalization  of  the  church,  and  unworthy  of  any  title,  rank, 
honour,  or  dignity.  Leo  the  Tenth  called  this  assembly,  in 
contempt,  a  conventicle.  Its  name,  says  Paolo,  was  detested 
at  Trent,  as  schismatical  and  destitute  of  universality  and 
authority.1 

The  council,  nevertheless,  execrated  as  it  was  by  popes  and 
councils,  and  exploded  by  divines,  was  confirmed  by  Nicholas 
the  Fifth,  and  received  through  the  extensive  territory  and 
numerous  churches  of  France  and  Germany.  The  sanction 
of  Nicholas,  it  seems,  notwithstanding  the  course  of  cursing  it 
endured  from  Eugenius,  vested  it  with  infallibility.  The  French 
contemplate  it  with  peculiar  esteem,  and  regard  its  rival  of 
Florence  as  a  conventicle.  The  Sorbonnists,  such  as  Richerius, 
Du  Pin,  Launoy,  and  Alexander,  have,  with  argument  and 
eloquence,  maintained  its  cecumenicity,  and  their  approval  has 
been  repeated  by  Moreri  and  even  Carranza.2 

The  French  also  acknowledge  the  second  of  Pisa,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  fifth  of  the  Lateran.  Julius  the  Second  delighted  in 
war,  practised  cruelty  on  the  cardinals,  excommunicated  Lewis 
the  French  king,  and  absolved  his  subjects  from  the  oath  of 
fidelity.  A  few  of  the  cardinals,  in  consequence,  separated 
from  the  pontiff;  and,  patronized  by  Maximilian,  the  German 
emperor,  and  Lewis,  the  French  monarch,  summoned  a  council, 
in  1511,  at  Pisa.  Julius,  in  opposition,  opened  a  council,  in 
1512,  at  the  Lateran.  These  two  conventions,  as  might  be 
expected,  did  not  treat  each  other  with  excess  of  politeness. 
Julius  characterized  the  Pisans  as  a  scandal,  a  pestilence,  a 
convention  of  the  devil,  a  congregation  of  wretches,  an  assembly 
of  malignants,  whose  head  was  Satan  the  father  of  falsehood 
and  schism  ;  and  found  the  sacred  synod  guilty  of  obstinacy, 
rebellion,  conspiracy,  audacity,  treason,  temerity,  abomination, 
sacrilege,  senselessness,  fraudulence,  dissimulation,  contumacy, 
sedition,  schism,  and  heresy.  His  infallibility  having,  with 
such  graphic  precision,  drawn  their  character,  proceeded, 
without  any  ceremony,  to  pronounce  their  sentence  of  excom- 
munication. Unsatisfied  with  his  sentence  against  the  refractory 
convention,  the  vicar-general  of  God  interdicted  Pisa,  Milan, 
and  Lyons,  where  the  synod  was  allowed  to  meet.3 

The  Pisans,  overflowing  with  gratitude,  and  ready  at  com- 
pliment and  benediction,  retaliated  in  fine  style.  The  holy 

1  Alex  25.  427.     Crab.  3.  966.     Moreri,  2.  100.     Bell.  III.  16.     Paolo,  VI.  and 
VTI.     L'Eglise  Gallicane  on  tenu  ce  concile  pour  oecumenique.     Milletot,  572. 
*  Du  Pin,  1405.     Alex.  25.  408.     Bruys,  4.  400.     Daniel,  6.  153.     Carranza,  579. 
3  Labb.  19.  570.  572—577.     Coss.  5.  356,  357.  360. 


136  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

fathers  declared  the  vicar-general  of  Jesus  guilty  of  contumacy, 
schism,  incorrigibility,  obduracy,  perjury,  and  indeed  allvillany. 
The  sacred  synod,  to  these  compliments,  added  a  benediction 
couched  in  very  flattering  language.  This  consisted  in  sus- 
pending the  viceroy  of  heaven  from  the  administration  of  the 
popedom,  and  prohibiting  all  obedience  of  the  clergy  and  laity 
of  Christendom.  This  sentence,  in  all  its  rigour,  was  actually 
enforced  through  the  French  nation.  Lewis  commanded  his 
subjects,  both  clergy  and  laity,  to  withdraw  all  submission. 
But  the  martial  Julius,  in  the  mean  time,  who  had  excom- 
municated Lewis,  died,  and  the  sensual  Leo  succeeded.  Lewis, 
therefore,  in  1513,  withdrew  his  support  from  the  Pisans,  and 
submitted  to  the  authority  of  Leo  and  the  Laterans.  Maximi- 
lian also  discountenanced  the  Pisan  convention,  which,  in  con- 
sequence, disbanded.  But  this  variation  of  the  French  sovereign 
was  not  lasting.  The  French  monarchs  afterwards  returned 
to  the  council  of  Pisa.  Its  acts,  in  1612,  were  published  from 
the  library  of  his  most  Christian  majesty,  and  its  authority,  in 
opposition  to  that  of  the  Lateran,  which  had  always  been 
obnoxious  to  the  French  parliament  and  clergy,  was  again 
acknowledged.1 

Such  on  the  subject  of  councils,  is  the  variation  between  the 
French  and  Italian  schools.  The  French  reject  four  councils, 
those  of  Lyons,  Florence,  Lateran,  and  Trent,  which  the  Italians 
admit ;  and  admit  four,  those  of  Pisa,  Constance,  Basil,  and  the 
second  of  Pisa,  which  the  others  reject.  x 

A  third  party  in  the  Romish  Church  reject  the  whole  or  a 
part  of  the  councils,  which,  in  the  Italian  system,  occur  from  the 
eighth  at  Constantinople  to  the  sixteenth  at  Florence.  All  these 
were  retrenched  by  Abrahamus,  Clement,  and  Pole.  The  edi- 
tion of  the  Florentian  synod,  published  by  Abrahamus,  reckons 
it  the  eighth  general  council.  The  editor,  therefore,  expunges 
the  Byzantine  council  and  the  seven  following.  The  extermi- 
nation of  the  eighth,  says  Launoy,  was  in  accordance  with  several 
Greeks  and  Latins.2  The  edition  of  Abrahamus  was  approved 
by  Clement  the  Seventh,  who  stamped  it  with  the  seal  of  his 
infallibility.  Baronius,  nevertheless,  followed  by  Binius  and 
Labbe,  has  found  the  editor  guilty  of  audacity,  ignorance, 
temerity,  and  falsehood.3  Pole,  in  the  synod  of  Lambeth,  in 

1  Inveterate  nella  simonia  et  ne'  costumi  infami  et  perduto.     Guicciardin,  i.  275. 
Endurcy  en  simonie  et  en  erreurs  infames  et  damnables,  il  ne  pouvoit  etre  capa 

hie  de  gouverner  la  Papaute.  It  etoit  notoirement  incorrigible  au  scandale  universe* 
de  toute  la  Chrestienite  vignier.  3.  867.  Mariana,  5.  767.  Moron,  3.  558.  et  5 
72.  Alex.  25.  27.  Bruys,  4.  461. 

2  Fuisse  Gracos  et  Latinos,  qui  octavam  synodum  e  numero  generalium  syne 
dorum  expunxerint.     Launoy,  4.  224.  et  5.  233. 

3  Magna  interprets  temeritate,  et  audacia,  sicut  et  imperitia  factum  est.     Bin.  T 
1038.     Labb.  10.  »96.     Wilkin,  4.  122.  126. 


THE    RECEPTION    OF    COUNCILS.  137 

1556,  adopted  the  same  enumeration,  and  denominated  the 
Florentian  assembly  the  eighth  general  council.1  This  was 
transacted  in  an  English  synod,  and,  therefore,  was  the  general 
opinion  of  the  English  clergy  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary.  Pole, 
notwithstanding,  in  noble  inconsistency,  recognized  the  ecume- 
nicity of  the  fourth  and  fifth  of  the  Lateran,  and  the  second  of 
Lyons.  This  system  proscribed  the  eight  general  councils 
which  met  at  Constantinople,  Lateran,  Lyons,  and  Vienna. 
Cardinal  Cantarin's  account  differs  little  from  that  of  Abra- 
hamus,  Clement,  and  Pole.  The  cardinal,  in  1562,  in  his 
summary  of  councils,  addressed  to  Paul  the  third,  reckons  the 
Byzantine  the  eighth,  and  the  Florentian  the  ninth  general 
council.  He  therefore  omits  two  of  Lyons,  four  of  the  Lat- 
eran, and  those  of  Vienna,  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil ;  and 
excludes  ten  which  have  been  owned  by  the  French  and  Italian 
schools. 

Sixtus,  Carranza,  Silvius,  and  the  Constantian  synod  omit 
part  of  the  councils,  which  intervened  between  the  eighth  and 
sixteenth.  Sixtus  the  fifth,  in  1588,  erected  paintings  and  in- 
scriptions of  the  general  councils  in  the  Vatican.  These  omit 
the  first  and  second  of  the  Lateran,  which,  destitute  of  canons, 
have  no  paintings  or  inscriptions  in  the  Vatican.2  These  two, 
therefore,  are  discarded  by  a  celebrated  pontiff  at  the  head- 
quarters of  Romanism.  Carranza  and  Silvius  omit  the  first, 
second,  and  third  of  the  Lateran  as  void  of  authority,  or  un- 
worthy of  attention.  Bellarmine  admits  the  mutilation  of  their 
acts  and  the  imperfection  of  their  history.  The  ecclesiastical 
annals,  according  to  Gibert,  have  recorded  only  the  definitions 
of  the  council  of  Vienna,  the  constitutions  of  the  first  and  second 
of  Lyons,  and  the  canons  of  the  four  former  of  the  Lateran. 
The  Constantian  assembly,  reckoning  in  all  only  eleven,  men- 
tions but  three,  which  assembled  at  the  Lateran,  Lyons,  and 
Vienna,  between  the  Byzantine  and  Florentian  conventions. 
The  Constantians,  therefore,  exclude  the  five  which  met  at  the 
Lateran,  Lyons,  and  Pisa.  The  pontiff  elect,  according  to  the 
Constantian  assembly  in  its  thirty-ninth  session,  was,  in  the 
presence  of  the  electors,  required  to  profess  his  faith  in  these 
eleven  general  councils,  and  especially  in  the  eight  which 
assembled  at  Nicsea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon.3 
Had  the  Constantians,  who  omitted  five,  exterminated  the 
whole  of  these  councils  from  the  annals  of  time,  the  holy  fathers 

1  In  Octava  General!  Synodo  Florentise  sub  Eugenio.     Labb.  20.     1018.     1021. 

*  On  n'a  point  les  canons  de  ces  deux  conciles,  et  ils  n'ont  point  de  tableau,  ni 
description  dans  le  Vatican.  Moreri  3,  539. 

3  Gibert,  1.  ,98.  Crabb.  2.  i.  55.  Alex.  21.  505.  Sancta  octo  universalia 
concilia  immutilata  servare»  Labb.  16.  703,  1046. 


138  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

would  have  conferred  a  distinguished  favour  on  the  world,  and 
merited  the  lasting  thanks  of  mankind. 

The  critics  and  historians  of  Romanism,  varying  in  this  man- 
ner in  the  enumeration  of  the  general  councils,  vary  also  about 
their  universality.  Some  condition  or  peculiarity  should  distin- 
guish a  general  from  a  diocesan,  a  provincial,  or  a  national 
synod.  This  characteristic  distinction,  however,  has  never  been 
ascertained.  The  attempt,  indeed,  has  been  made  by  Bellar- 
mine,  Binius,  Carranza,  Jacobatius,  Holden,  Lupus,  Arsdekin, 
Fabulottus,  Panormitan,  Bosius,  and  Martinon.  But  their 
requisitions  differ  from  each  other  and  from  the  facts  of  the 
councils.  The  theory  of  each  is  at  variance  with  the  rest  or 
inapplicable  to  the  councils,  the  universality  of  which  is  ad- 
mitted. 

One  party,  would  leave  the  decision  to  the  pope.  These 
reckon  it  the  prerogative  of  the  Roman  pontiff  to  determine  on 
the  universality  and  sufficiency  of  a  general  council.  This 
condition  has  been  advocated  by  Panormitan,  Martinon,  and 
Jacobatius.1  But  its  application  to  the  acknowledged  general 
councils  would  cause  the  partial  or  total,  the  temporary  or  per- 
manent explosion  of  six,  which  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Italian  or  French  system.  The  popes,  for  a  long  lapse  of  time, 
rejected  all  the  canons  of  the  second  at  Constantinople,  and 
have  never  recognized  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of  Chalcedon. 
Vigilius,  for  some  time,  withstood  the  fifth  oecumenical  synod, 
and  his  acquiescence  was,  at  last,  extorted  by  banishment. 
The  council  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil,  applauded  by  the 
French  school,  deposed  Gregory,  Benedict,  John,  and 
Eugenius. 

A  second  class,  to  constitute  a  synodal  universality,  require 
the  attendance  of  the  pope,  patriarchs,  and  metropolitans, 
together  with  subsequent  general  reception.2  This  requisition 
has  been  advocated  by  Bosius  and  Paolo,  and  is  in  discordancy 
with  the  system  of  Martinon  and  Jacobatius,  as  well  as  that  of 
Bellarmine,  Binius,  Carranza,  Canus,  Gibert,  Lupus,  Fabu- 
lottus. Its  application  would  exclude  many  of  the  oecumenical 
synods.  The  Roman  hierarch  attended  the  second  and  fifth 
neither  in  person  nor  by  proxy.  The  patriarchs  were  present 
in  neither  the  third,  fourth,  nor  seventh,  nor  in  any  of  the  ten 
western  councils.  The  Ephesian  and  Chalcedonian  synods 

1  Pontificis  est  declarare,  an  congregatio  generalis  sufficienter.  Martinon,  Disput. 
V.  §  7.  Maimb.  c.  VII.  Anton,  c.  V.  XXXI.  Posset  numerus  episcoporum,  cum 
quibus  tenendum  est  concilium  relinqui  arbitrio  Papae.  Jacobatius,  II. 

Concilium  generate  necessario  non  potest,  quando  Papa  tali  concilio  praeest.  Pa- 
normitan, 2.  53. 

8  Dico  aclesse  oportere  Sedem  Apostolic  am,  omnes  ecclesiae  orthodoxoa 
Patriarchas.  Bosius,  V.  8.  Paol.  Rig.  Sov.  c.  IV. 


UNIVERSALITY    OF    GENERAL  COUNCILS.  139 

condemned  Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism  without  the  pa- 
triarchs of  Antioch  or  Alexandria.  The  pretended  vicars  of 
the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  in  the 
second  of  Nicoea,  were  impostors.  During  the  ten  general 
councils  which  assembled  in  the  west,  the  eastern  patriarchs 
were  accounted  guilty  of  heresy,  or  at  least  of  schism.  Sub- 
sequent reception  would  extend  universality  to  several  diocesan, 
provincial,  and  national  councils,  such  as  those  of  Anc}rra, 
Neocaesarea,  Laodicea,  and  Gangra.1 

A  third  faction  prescribe,  as  the  condition  of  universality, 
the  convocation  of  all,  the  rejection  of  none,  and  the  actual 
attendance  of  some  from  ah1  the  great  nations  of  Christendom. 
The  presence  of  the  patriarchs,  in  person  or  by  delegations, 
may  be  useful ;  but,  as  they  are  now  heretical,  or  at  least 
scbismatical,  is  not  necessary.  This  system  has  been  patronized 
by  Bellarmine,  Binius,  Carranza,  Canus,  Gibert,  Lupus,  Ars- 
dekin,  Jacobatius,  and  has  obtained  general  adoption.2  These 
requisitions,  nevertheless,  varying  from  those  of  other  critics, 
vary  also  from  the  constitution  of  ah1  the  acknowledged  councils. 
Bellarmine's  prescription,  exploding  all  the  preceding,  would, 
in  its  practical  application,  exterminate,  with  one  sweeping 
reprobation,  all  the  Grecian,  Latin,  and  French  oecumenical 
synods. 

The  eight  Grecian  conventions,  from  the  Nicene  to  the 
Byzantine,  met,  as  Alexander,  Moreri,  and  Du  Pin  have  observed 
in  the  east,  and  the  ten  Latin,  from  the  Lateran  to  the  Trentine, 
in  the  west.  The  eastern  councils  were,  with  very  few  excep- 
tions, celebrated  by  the  Greeks,  and  the  western  by  the  Latins. 
In  the  chief  part  of  the  general  councils,  celebrated  in  the  east, 
there  were  present,  says  Alexender,  only  two  or  three  westerns. 
The  second,  third,  and  fifth  of  the  eastern  synods,  which  met 
at  Constantinople  and  Ephesus,  were  wholly  unattended  with 
any  westerns.  The  first  council  of  Constantinople,  say 
Thomassin  and  Alexander,  was  entirely  Grecian,  and  became 
general  only  by  future  reception  ;  and  its  reception  was  confined 
to  its  faith,  exclusive  of  its  discipline.  Vigilius,  with  some 
Latins,  was  in  Constantinople  at  the  celebration  of  the  fifth, 
and  refused  notwithstanding  to  attend.  The  Ephesian  council 
had  effected  the  condemnation  of  Nestorianism,  which  was  its 
chief  or  only  business,  before  the  arrival  of  the  Latins,  and 
was,  in  consequence,  restricted  to  the  Asians  and  Egyptians.3 

1  Lupus.  306.     Bell.  I.  17.     Carranza,  4.     Theod.  Stud.  Ep.  1. 

2  Satis  est,  ut  sit  omnibus  provinces  intimatum,  omnibusque  liber  sit  ad  illud  ao- 
cesrms.     Fabulottus.  c.   V.     Majore  parte  Christianarum  provinciarum,  aliqui  ad- 
veniant.     Qarranza,  4.     Bell,  1.  17.     Arsdekin,  1.  160. 

3  In  plerisque  conciliis  oecumenicis  in  Orieute  celebratis,  duos  aut  tres  duntaxat 


140  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

Two  or  three,  indeed,  delegated  by  the  Roman  hierarch,  were 
present  in  the  first,  fourth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  genera] 
councils.  Vitus,  Vicentius,  and  Hosius  appeared  in  the  council 
of  Nicaea ;  while  Petrus  and  Vicedomus  sat,  with  legatine 
authority,  in  the  second  of  that  city.  Three  represented  the 
pontiff,  and  three  the  westerns,  in  the  fourth  and  sixth  at  Chal- 
cedon  and  Constantinople.  The  eighth  constituted  a  blessed 
representation  of  the  universal  church.  The  first  session  con- 
sisted of  sixteen  or  seventeen  bishops,  who,  of  course,  were, 
in  their  synodal  capacity,  clothed  with  infallibility.  The  second 
received  an  augmentation  often,  who  begged  pardon  for  having 
supported  Photius,  and  were  admitted.  The  third  session 
consisted  of  twenty-three,  and  the  fourth  of  twenty-one  bishops. 
The  fifth  was  fewer  in  number.  The  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth 
amounted  to  the  wonderful  multitude  of  thirty-seven.  The 
ninth  rose  to  sixty,  and  the  tenth  numbered  one  hundred,  who 
subscribed  the  synodal  decision.1  Such  were  the  eight  Grecian 
synods,  which  are,  therefore,  fairly  dismissed  by  the  application 
of  Bellarmine's  condition  of  universality. 

Bellarminers  terms  would  dismiss  the  ten  western  as  well  as 
the  eight  eastern  councils.  The  former,  as  Moreri  and  Du  Pi  i 
have  shown,  were  limited  to  the  Latins,  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Greeks.  The  first  of  Lyons  consisted  of  about  one  hundred 
and  forty  bishops  from  France  and  England,  without  any  from 
Spain,  Portugal,  Germany,  or  Italy.  The  French,  in  the  council 
of  Trent,  mocked  at  the  Florentian  convention,  which,  they 
said,  was  celebrated  by  only  a  few  Italians  and  four  Grecians. 
The  fifth  of  the  Lateran  consisted  of  about  eighty,  and  nearly 
all  from  Italy.  The  far  famed  assembly  of  Trent,  when  it  con- 
ferred canonicity  on  the  Apocrypha  and  authenticity  on  the 
Vulgate,  consisted  only  of  five  cardinals  and  forty-eight  bishops, 
without  one  from  Germany.  These,  few  in  number,  were 
below  mediocrity  in  theological  and  literary  attainments.  Some 
were  lawyers,  and  perhaps  learned  in  their  profession  ;  but  mere 
sciolists  in  divinity.  The  majority  were  courtiers,  and  gentle- 
men of  titular  dignity,  and  from  small  cities.2  These  could 
not  be  said  to  represent  one  in  a  thousand  in  Christendom. 
During  the  lapse  of  eight  months,  the  council,  reckoning  even 
the  presidents  and  princes,  did  not  exceed  sixty-four. 

The  councils  of  the  French  school,  like  those  of  the  Italian, 
cannot  bear  the  test  of  Bellarmine's  requisitions.  These,  like 

episcopos  occidentalis  ecclesiae  adfuisse.  Alexan.  25.  632.  Moreri,  3.  539.  Du 
Pin,  2.  388.  Pithou,  29.  In  secundo  et  tertio  concilio  generali,  nullus  fait  episco 
pus  occidentalis.  Fabul.  c.  V.  Thoraassin,  1.  6.  Crabb,  2.  91.  Maimbourg,  68 
Godeau,  4.  498.  l  Bin.  1.  321.  Du  Pin,  cen.  V.  etcen.  IX.  c.  IX. 

a  Paries  seuls  eveques  d' Occident.     Moreri,  3,  539.     Du  Pin,  2.    388,    430 
Paolo,  II.  VII.     Giann.  XVII.  3.  Launoy,  1.  376. 


ON    THE    LEGALITY    OF    COUNCILS.  141 

the  others,  were  composed  of  Europeans.  The  Pisans,  though 
they  amounted  to  more  than  two  hundred,  were  collected  chiefly 
from  Italy,  France,  Germany,  and  England.  The  Constantians 
and  Basifians,  though  more  numerous,  were  westerns  and  Latins. 
The  second  of  Pisa  was  principally  collected  from  the  French 
dominions,  and  could,  therefore,  have  no  just  claim  to  univer- 
sality or  a  convocation  from  all  Christendom.1 

Theologians  and  critics,  disagreeing  in  this  manner  about  the 
universality  of  general  councils,  differ  also  respecting  their 
legality.  A  synod,  to  be  general  or  valid,  must  be  lawful ;  and 
the  conditions  of  the  latter  as  well  as  of  the  former,  have  occa- 
sioned a  striking  variety  of  opinion.  The  partizans  of  popery 
differ  concerning  a  general  council's  convocation,  presidency, 
confirmation,  members,  freedom,  and  unanimity. 

The  Italians,  patronized  by  many  theologians  and  pontiffs, 
make  the  pope's  convocation,  presidency,  and  confirmation, 
necessary  terms  of  synodal  legality .  These  account  no  council 
lawful  without  these  requisitions.  All  others,  say  the  Transal- 
pines,  are  conventicles.  The  sovereign  pontiff*,  according  to 
Jacobatius,  Carranza,  and  Antonius,  can  call  a  general  council, 
which  depends  on  him  for  its  authority.  His  sanction  only  can 
confer  validity.  A  synod,  says  pope  Nicholas,  without  pon- 
tifical authority,  is  invalid.  The  assembling  of  a  general  council, 
says  Pelagius  the  second,  is  the  sole  prerogative  of  the  Roman 
See.  Nicholas  and  Pelagius,  in  these  statements,  have  been 
followed  by  Jacobatius  and  Antonius.2 

This  system,  taught  in  the  Italian  school  and  maintained  with 
positivity  and  arrogance,  has  been  assailed  by  the  French  critics, 
who  spurn  the  papal  claim,  and  have,  beyond  all  question, 
evinced  its  groundlessness  in  point  of  fact  in  the  eight  eastern 
councils.  According  to  Du  Pin  and  Moreri,  '  the  eight  former 
councils  were  convoked  by  the  emperors.'  Gibert  states  that 
'  all  the  oriental  general  councils  were  assembled  by  the  imperial 
authority :'  and  this  statement  has  been  repeated  by  Mezeray, 
Alexander,  Maimbourg,  Paoli,  Almain,  Gerson,  Alliaco,  and 
Launoy.8 


1  Du  Pin,  403.     Moreri,  7.  244.     Crabb.  3.  549. 

2  Congregare  concilium  est  proprium  Romani  Pontifici.     Jacob.  III.     Ad  solum 
Romanum  Pontificem,  generale  concilium  convocare  pertinet.     Carranza,  3.     Non 
potest  concilium  rite  congregari  nisi  authoritate   Romani  Pontificis.     Anton,  c.  V. 
Synodus  absque  authoritate  Romani  Pontificis,  non  valet.    Nicholas,  I.  Carranza,  511. 
Generates  synodis  non  posse  convocari,  nisi  authoritate  Apostolicse  sedis.    Pelagius, 
II.     Carranza,  329. 

3  Octo  priora  concilia  ab  Imperatoribus  convocata  esse  constat.     Du  Pin.  337. 
Lea  premiers  ont  ete  autrefois,  jusqu'  au  huitieme  general,  toujours  convoque  par 
les  Empereurs.     Moreri,  3.  539.     Omnia  concilia  generalia  Orientalia  ab  Impera 
toribus  coacta  fuerunt.     Gibert,  1.  76,  77. 


142  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Launoy  has  shown  the  imperial  convocation  of  the  oriental 
councils  by  an  array  of  evidence,  sufficient,  one  would  conclude, 
to  convince  scepticism  and  silence  all  opposition.  The  convo- 
cation of  the  Nicene  council  by  Constantine,  is,  according  to  this 
author,  attested  by  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  Ruffinus,  Socrates, 
Theodoret,  Sozomen,  Gelasius,  Justinian,  Isidorus,  Gregory, 
Mansuetus,  Zonaras,  Reparatus,  Robertus,  Vicentius,  Nicepho- 
rus,  Antoninus,  Sabellicus,  Platina,  Pighius,  Prateolus,  Gene- 
brard,  and  Sigonius.  Theodosius  called  the  Byzantine  synod, 
as  appears  from  Theodoret,  Socrates,  Sozomen,  Gelasius, 
Vigilius,  Justinian,  Isidorus,  Simeon,  Zonaras,  Robertus,  Nice- 
phorus,  Sigonius,  and  Petavius.  The  assembling  of  the  Ephe- 
sian  council  by  Theodosius  and  Valentinian,  is  attested  by 
Theodosius,  Basil,  Cyril,  Theodoret,  John,  Socrates,  Justinian, 
Valentinian,  Sigibert,  Nicephorus,  and  the  council  itself. 
Marcian,  according  to  Valentinian,  Leo,  Theodoret,  Prosper, 
Liberatus,  Evagrius,  Justinian,  Vigilius,  Mansuetus,  Sigibert, 
Nicephorus,  Gobelin,  Mariana,  and  the  synod  itself,  convened 
the  council  of  Chalcedon  :  and  Justinian  summoned  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  assembly,  say  Justinian,  Evagrius,  Mansuetus, 
Nicephorus,  Mariana,  and  Petavius.  The  emperor  Constantine 
the  Fourth  convoked  the  sixth  general  synod,  according  to 
Agatha,  Beda,  Paulus,  Frecolf,  Hincmar,  Ado,  Anastasius, 
Regino,  Lambert,.  Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  Gobelin,  Hartmann, 
Nauclerus,  Petavius,  the  Roman  breviary,  and  the  acts  of  the 
council.  The  empress  Irene,  in  conjunction  with  Constantine, 
assembled  the  second  Nicene  convention,  as  is  related  by 
Tarasius,  Adrian,  Anastasius,  Paulus,  Platina,  Hartmann, 
Bergomas,  and  the  acts  of  the  council.  The  emperor  Basil's 
convocation  of  the  eighth  oecumenical  assembly  is  testified  by 
Adrian,  Ignatius,  Cedrenus,  and  Zonaras.  The  council  of  Pisa** 
was  convened  by  cardinals.1 

The  presidency  of  the  Roman  pontiff  in  a  general  council  is, 
according  to  Du  Pin,  *  a  matter,  not  of  necessity  but  of  con- 
venience. He  did  not  preside  in  the  three  first  general  councils.' 
Cusan  ascribes  « the  presidency,  not  to  the  pontiffs  but  to  the 
emperors.'  The  sovereigns,  says  Paolo,  '  who  called  these 

Nous  ne  trouvom  point  de  concile  cecumenique  jusqu'  an  neu  vieme  siecle,  qui 
n'ait  6tfe  assemble  par  leur  autorite.  Mezeray,  5.  466.  Maimhourg,  42. 

Nicoena  Synodus  convocata  est  a  Constantino.  Alex.  7.  122.  et  8.  82. — Hoc  con- 
cilium oec  amenicum  fuit  a  Theodosio  seniore  convocatum,  ineonsulto  Damaso,  Ro- 
mano Pontifice.  Alexander,  9.  79. — Synodus  o?cumenica  Ephesina  convocata  est 
£  Theodosio.  Alex.  2.  218. — Marcianus  Synodum  IV.  convocavit.  Alexand.  2. 
305.— Constantinus  Synodum  Sextam  convocavit.  Alexand.  13.  287.  Septima 
Synodus  a  Constantino  et  Irene  Augustis  convocata  est.  Alexand.  14.  523. 

1  Launoy  ad  Ludov.  4.  22.  et  ad  Voell.  4.  108.  et  ad  Bray.  4.  191.  et  ad  Malat.  4. 
207,  223.  Daniel,  5.  444. 


PRESIDENCY    OF    COUNCILS.  143 

synods,  presided  in  person  or  by  representation,  and  proposed 
the  matter,  prescribed  the  form,  and  regulated  the  discussions 
of  such  conventions.'  The  sovereign  pontiff,  according  to 
Mariana,  Gibert,  Maimbourg,  and  Godeau,did  not  appear  either 
in  person  or  by  proxy,  in  the  second,  fifth,  or  Pisa  n  assembly. 
Timotheus  and  Eutychius,  says  Alexander,  presided  in  the 
Byzantine  conventions  under  the  emperors  Theodosius  and 
Justinian.  Photius  attributes  the  presidency  of  the  seventh 
general  council  to  Tarasius.1 

The  first  councils,  says  Du  Pin,  '  were  not  confirmed  by  the 
popes.'  The  pontiffs,  on  the  contrary,  opposed  the  canons  of 
the  second  and  fourth,  which  conferred  rank  and  jurisdiction 
on  the  Byzantine  patriarch.  Vigilius  withstood  the  fifth  with 
all  his  pontifical  authority.  Petavius's  representation  of  this 
hierarch's  versatility  is  a  curiosity.  His  infallibility,  says  this 
historian,  '  proscribed,  and  then  confirmed  the  fifth  universal 
council.  He  afterward  a,gain  disclaimed,  and  finally  declared 
its  legitimacy.'2 

The  general  conventions,  from  that  of  the  Lateran  to  that  of 
Trent,  were  held  in  the  west,  and  enjoyed  the  distinguished 
honour  of  pontifical  convocation,  presidency,  and  ratification. 
This  period  embraced  the  ten  Latin  universal  councils.  The 
Roman  empire  was  then  divided  into  many  smaller  states, 
whose  sovereigns,  actuated  with  petty  ambition  and  engaged  in 
mutual  opposition  and  rivalry,  could  not  agree  about  ecclesias- 
tical conventions.  The  pope,  in  this  emergency,  assumed  the 
prerogative  of  convocation  and  presidency.  He  convened  the 
clergy  and  arrogated  the  power,  which  had  been  exercised  by 
the  emperor,  and  which,  in  the  hands  of  the  hierarch,  became 
an  engine  of  pontifical  aggrandisement  and  despotism.3 

A  variety  of  opinions  have  been  entertained,  with  respect  to 
the  per.sons  who  should  form  a  general  council.  A  few  would 
admit  laymen  ;  while  many  would  exclude  all  but  the  clergy. 
Some  would  restrict  decisive  suffrage  to  the  prelacy,  and  others 
would  extend  it  to  the  priesthood.  The  former  was  the  usage 
of  antiquity.  The  latter  obtained  in  some  of  the  councils  in 

1  Tribus  primis  conciliis  generalibus  non  praefuit.  Du  Pin,  337.  Cusan,  III.  16. 
II  n'ait  pas  preside  au  premier  Concile  de  Constantinople,  II  es  tres-certain  qu'il 
ne  convoqua  pas  le  cinqueime,  et  n'y  presida  point.  Mainib.  42.  Htiic  concilio 
prrefuit  Timotheus.  Alexand.  7.  234.  Concilio  Quinto  Oecumenico  praftiit 
Eutychius.  Alexand.  12.  574,  Paolo,  1.  213,  Mariana,  1.  521.  Gibert,  1.  66, 
38.  Godeau,  4.  274.  Photius,  57. 

1  Prima  Concilia  a  Pontificibus  confirmata  minime  sunt.  Du  Pin,  337.  Gibert, 
1.  102.  Sedes  Apostolica  nunc  usque  contradicit,  quod  a  synodo  firmntum  est. 
Liberatus,  c.  XIII.  111am  primum  respuit  Vigilius,  deinde  assensione  iirmavit, 
postea  repudi^vit  iterum.  Deriique  legitimara  esse  profeasus  est.  Petavius,  2. 

1  Oi   * 

a  Gibert,  1.  70.     Paolo,  1.  215      Moreri,  3.  539. 


144  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

more  modern  days.  Panormitan  would  restrict  membership  in 
a  general  council  to  the  pope  and  prelacy,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  laity.1 

Varying  in  this  way  about  the  number  of  councils,  the  Romish 
doctors  vary  also  respecting  the  manner  of  synodal  decision. 
Some  would  decide  by  a  majority ;  while  others  would  require 
unanimity  as  a  condition  of  legitimacy.  One  faction,  patronized 
by  Bellarmine,  account  a  majority,  if  sanctioned  by  pontifical 
ratification,  sufficient  for  conferring  validity.  A  second  party, 
countenanced  by  Du  Pin,  Canus,  Salmeron,  Cusan,  and  Panoi- 
mitan,  would  demand  unanimity,  for  bestowing  legitimation 
on  a  council  and  validity  on  its  decisions.2 

The  requisition  of  unanimity  would,  in  fact,  explode  the 
majority  of  all  the  eighteen  general  councils.  A  few  indeed 
have  been  unanimous,  but  many  divided.  The  Nicene,  By- 
zantine, Ephesian,  and  Chalcedonian  synods  contained  factions 
that  favoured  Arianism,  Macedonianism,  Nestorianism,  Euty- 
chiariism,  and  Monothelitism.  Mighty  controversy,  say  both 
Eusebius  and  Socrates,  arose  at  Nicaea,  and  was  maintained 
with  pertinacity.  But  these  sons  of  heresy  were,  in  general, 
exterminated  by  deposition,  banishment,  murder,  or  some  other 
way  of  legal  ratiocination  and  evangelical  discipline.3  The 
patrons  of  idolatry  in  the  second  assembly  of  Nicsea,  anticipated 
all  opposition  to  their  intended  enactments  by  rejecting  all  who 
would  not  execrate  the  patrons  of  Iconoclasm. 

The  ten  western  councils  were  under  the  control  of  the 
Roman  pontiff.  His  power,  combined  with  ignorance  and  the 
inquisition,  succeeded  in  a  great  measure,  in  silencing  opposition 
and  commanding  unanimity.  But  occasional  symptoms  of 
rebellion  against  the  vicar-general  of  God  appeared,  notwith- 
standing general  submission,  even  in  western  Christendom.  No 
assembly,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  ever  showed  less  unity  than 
the  council  of  Trent.  Theologian  opposed  theologian,  and 
bishop  withstood  bishop,  in  persevering  impertinence  and  con- 
tention. The  dominican  fought  with  the  franciscan  in  an  endless 
and  provoking  war  of  rancour  and  nonsense.  The  French 
and  Spanish  encountered  the  Italians,  with  inferior  numbers, 
indeed,  but  with  far  superior  reason  and  eloquence.  All  this 
appears  in  the  details  of  Paolo,  Du  Pin,  and  even  Pallavicino. 
The  Trentine  contest  and  decision  on  original  sin  may  be  given 

1  Grotty,  83.  Alex.  10.  341.  Lenfan.  1.  107.  Anton,  c.  V.  Du  Pin,  3.  9 
Synodus  generalis  constituitur  a  papa  et  episcopis,  et  sic  nihil  die  it  de  laicis 
Pannrm.  142. 

*  II  faut  qu'elle  passe  du  consentement  unanime.     Du  Pin,  Dock  ch.  1.  3. 

Nego,  cum  de  fide  agitur,  sequi  plurimorum  judicium  oportere.  Canus,  VI.  5 
Apol.  ].  103—105.  8  Eusefeius,  III.  ]3.  Socrates,  1.  8. 


WANT    OF    UNANIMITY    IN     COUNCILS.  145 

as  a  specimen  of  Trentine  contention  and  senseless  animosity. 
The  bishops,  learned  in  general  in  the  law,  but  unskilled  in 
divinity,  were  utterly  confounded  by  the  distinctions,  scholas- 
ticism, and  puzzling  diversity  of  opinion  which  prevailed  among 
the  theologians.  The  composition  of  the  canons  was  over- 
whelmed with  inextricable  difficulty.  The  persons  employed 
in  this  task  could  not  comprize  every  opinion,  or  avoid  the 
hazard  of  creating  a  schism.1  The  discord  of  the  Trentine 
fathers  became,  in  the  French  nation,  the  subject  of  witticism 
and  mockery. 

The  contentions  of  the  French  synod  of  Melun,  preparatory 
to  that  of  Trent,  afforded  a  striking  prelude  and  specimen  of  the 
noisy  and  numerous  altercations  which  were  afterwards  dis- 
played in  the  latter  assembly.  The  French  king  convened  the 
Parisian  doctors  at  Melun,  for  the  purpose  of  arranging  the 
dogmas  of  faith,  which,  on  the  assembling  of  the  general  coun- 
cil, were  to  be  proposed  for  discussion.  The  Parisians,  how- 
ever, could  agree  on  nothing.  These,  adhering  to  a  church 
which  boasts  of  exclusive  unity,  squabbled  and  contended  on 
the  topics  of  the  sacraments,  the  Concordat,  the  Pragmatic 
sanction,  and  the  Constantian  and  Basilian  councils,  without 
meaning  or  end.  Each,  however,  without  being  disconcerted 
by  their  discord,  would  have  his  own  opinion  made  an  article 
of  faith.  The  king,  in  consequence,  had  to  dissolve  the  council 
without  coming  to  any  conclusion.2  A  scene  of  equal  dissension 
is  not  to  be  found  in  ah1  the  annals  of  protestantism. 

Freedom  of  discussion  and  suffrage  is,  according  to  unanimous 
consent,  a  necessary  condition  of  synodal  legitimacy.  Authors, 
the  most  adverse  in  other  things,  agree  in  the  requisition  of 
liberty.  This,  in  an  ecclesiastical  assembly,  was  the  demand 
of  the  ancients,  such  as  Hilary,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Facundus, 
as  well  as  of  the  moderns,  such  as  Richerius,  Canus,  and  Duval. 
No  council,  says  Facundus,  was  ever  known,  under  compul- 
sion, to  subscribe  any  thing  but  falsehood.3  Freedom  of  speech 
was  one  of  the  conditions  of  a  general  ecclesiastical  assembly 
required  by  the  council  of  Basil.  This  freedom,  it  has  been 
admitted,  is  destroyed,  not  only  by  deposition  and  banishment, 

1  Les  eveques  embarassez  par  une  si  grande  variete  d'opinions,  ne  savoient  quel 
Jugement  porter.     II  y  avoit  une  si  grande  variete  de  sentimens  des  theologiens, 
ils  ne  croyoient  pas  qu'il  fut  possible,  ni  de  definir  la  chose  ni  de  condamner  quelqu' 
une  de  ces  opinions,  sans  courir  le  risque  de  causer  quelque  schisme.    Paolo,  1.  281. 
Les  disputes  se  reveillerent  avec  tant  de  force,  que  les  legate  eurent  beaucoup  de 
peine  a  les  appaiser.     Paolo,  2.  282.     Du  Pin,  3.  426. 

2  Tls  etoient  aussi  partagez  sur  1' article  des  sacremens.     Chacun  vouloltfaire  pas- 
ser son  opinion  pour  un  dogme  de  foi.     Ils  ne  parent   convenir  d'autre  chose. 
Paolo,  1.  177,  17^8. 

3  Nuuquam  coactum   concilium,  nisi  falsitati,  subscripsit.     Facundus,    XII.    3. 
Gibert,  1.  74.     Amb.in  Luc.  6. 

10 


146  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

but  also  by  threats,  bribery,  gifts,  favour,  faction,  simony,  party, 
money,  and  influence.  The  favour  of  the  emperor  was,  Tny 
Ambrosius,  considered  subversive  of  synodal  liberty.  Thraldon; 
or  servility  may  arise  from  any  thing  that  may  bias  the  mind  or 
influence  the  vote. 

The  application  of  this  requisition  would  explode  all  the 
general  councils  that  ever  met  in  Christendom.  All  these  were 
swayed  by  hope,  fear,  reward,  or  punishment,  or  influenced, 
more  or  less,  by  faction  or  favour,  menace  or  money.  The 
eighteen  councils  were  controlled  by  the  Roman  emperor  or  the 
Roman  pontiff.  The  eight  oecumenical  councils  celebrated  in 
the  east  were  influenced  by  imperial  power.  The  emperors, 
in  person  or  by  representation,  presided  as  judges  in  the  Grecian 
conventions,  and  moulded  them  into  any  form  they  pleased.1 
None  of  these  ecclesiastical  meetings  was  ever  known  to  resist 
the  will  of  its  sovereign,  but  adhered,  with  undeviatirig  uni- 
formity, to  the  duty  of  unlimited  and  unqualified  submission. 
Constantino's  management  of  the  Nicene  assembly,  the  most 
respectable  of  all  that  have  been  called  general,  is  recorded  by 
Eusebius  and  Socrates.  He  gained  some,  say  these  historians, 
by  reason  and  some  by  supplication.  Some  he  praised  and 
some  he  blamed ;  and,  by  these  means,  succeeded,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  in  effecting  an  unanimity.2  Such  are  the  effects  of 
imperial  arguments.  A  few,  however,  preferred  their  conscience 
or  their  system  to  royal  favour,  and  were  banished  or  deposed 
for  error  and  contumacy.  Arius,  Eusebius,  and  Theognis, 
having  for  some  time  felt  the  blessed  effects  of  these  logical  and 
scriptural  arguments,  subscribed  and  were  restored.  Maris, 
Theognis,  and  Eusebius,  says  Philostorgius,  declared  in  self- 
coridemnation,  .that,  influenced  by  terror,  they  had  signed 
heterodoxy. 

The  easterns  and  westerns  were  as  accommodating  to  the 
Arian  Constantius  as  to  the  Trinitarian  Constantine.  Con- 
stantius,  forsaking  the  Trinitarian  system,  adopted  Arianism ; 
and  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  whether  united  or  separated, 
complied  with  the  imperial  humour,  and  signed,  like  dutiful  sub- 
jects, the  Arian  and  Semi-Arian  confessions  of  Sirmium, 
Seleucia,  Milan,  and  Ariminum.  The  oriental  and  occidental 
prelacy,  united  at  Sirmiumin  one  of  the  mostnumerous  councils 
that  ever  met,  subscribed,  in  compliance  with  their  sovereign, 
in  Arian  creed,  which,  as  Du  Pin  has  shown,  was  signed  by 
his  infallibility  Pope  Liberius.  The  Greeks,  consisting  of 

1  Ces  sortes  d'assemblees  farent  dirigees  par  les  Princes.     Paolo,  1.  213. 

a  TLoMys  a^tJioyia?  dvnd'tafjLfvtjf.     Eusebius,  de  vita  Constantini,  III.  13.     Tw$ 
ftsv  tfv/ijtftflcov,    forj    8s  xcu>   Sutfwrtwv   I'D    Koycpi    t'otj  5?    £v 
Bocrat.  1.  8.     Philostorgius,  1.  10. 


WANT    OF    FREEDOM    IN    COUNCILS.  147 

Arians  and  Semi-Arians,  assembled  at  Seleucia,  framed,  after 
a  long  and  bitter  altercation,  an  Arian  and  Semi-Arian  con- 
fession. These  two  the  holy  bishops  referred,  not  to  Liberius 
but  to  Constantius,  not  to  the  pontiff  but  to  the  emperor,  for  his 
approbation  and  sanction.  The  emperor,  rejecting  both,  pro- 
duced one  of  an  Arian  stamp,  which  had  been  composed  at 
Nicea  and  subscribed  at  Ariminum;  and  this,  the  sacred  synod 
with  the  most  obliging  condescension  unanimously  adopted. 
The  Latins,  at  Milan  and  Ariminum,  followed  the  footsteps  of 
the  Greeks.  The  world,  says  Jerome  on  this  occasion,  groaned 
and  wondered  at  its  Arianism ;  and  all  in  compliance  with  its 
sovereign.1 

The  annals  of  image  worship,  as  well  as  the  history  of  Arian- 
ism, show  the  control  which  the  Roman  emperors  exercised 
over  the  consciences  and  the  faith  of  their  subjects,  clergy  and 
laity.  The  emperor  Constantine,  the  enemy  of  idolatry  and 
the  patron  of  iconoclasm,  called  a  numerous  synod  at  Constan- 
tinople ;  and  the  bishops,  adopting  the  faith  of  their  prince, 
anathematized  all  those  who  adored  the  works  of  the  pencil  or 
chisel.  But  the  empress  Irene,  the  votary  of  images  and  super- 
stition, assembled  the  second  Nicene  council,  which  is  the 
seventh  general,  and  the  holy  fathers,  proselyted  by  imperial 
arguments,  cursed,  in  long  and  loud  execrations,  all  the  sons 
and  daughters  of  iconoclasm.  The  western  emperor,  in  hos- 
tility to  image  worship,  called,  at  Frankfort,  a  council  of  three 
hundred  bishops,  who  represented  the  whole  western  church, 
and  who  overthrew  the  Nicene  enactment  in  favour  of  idolatry.2 

The  imperial  power  in  the  oriental  synods  prevailed  against 
the  pontifical  authority.  The  emperor's  influence  was  para- 
mount to  the  pontiff's.  The  pope,  in  several  councils,  sum- 
moned all  his  energy  and  influence  in  opposition  to  the  emperor, 
but  without  success.  Papal  imbecility,  compared  with  imperial 
power,  appeared  in  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  general 
councils.  The  second  and  fourth  councils  elevated  the  Byzantine 
patriarch  to  a  pitch  of  honour  and  jurisdiction,  offensive,  in  a 
high  degree,  to  the  Roman  pontiff.  The  second  conferred  on 
the  Constantinopolitan  chief  an  honorary  primacy,  next  to  the 
Roman  hierarch ;  and  the  fourth,  in  its  twenty-eighth  canon, 
granted  equality  of  honour,  and  added  the  jurisdiction  of  Asia, 
Pontus,  and  Thracia.  These  honours,  bestowed  on  a  rival, 
the  pope,  as  might  be  expected,  resisted  with  all  his  might  and 
authority.  Lucentius,  the  pope's  vicar  at  Chalcedon  on  this 

1  Bin.  1.  479. — Du  Pin,  in  Lib. — Hil.  in  Syn. — Jerom.  in  Cbron. 
»  Theoph.  2135.     Zonaras,  2.  85.     Bruy.  1.  554.     Crabb.  2.  599.     Bruy,   1.  58i, 
Carranza,  490.     Mabillon,  2.  289. 

10* 


148  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

occasion,  complained,  in  open  court,  of  faction  and  compulsion. 
The  bishops,  said  he,  in  the  sixteenth  session,  '  are  circum- 
vented and  forced  to  subscribe  canons,  to  which  they  have  not 
consented.'  But  pontifical  exertion  was  vain,  when  opposed 
to  imperial  power.  Lucentius  protested.1  But  the  obnoxious 
canon,  nevertheless,  was  inserted  in  the  code  of  the  church, 
and  obtained  validity  through  Christendom. 

The  Ephesian  synod  affords  another  proof  of  the  prevalence 
of  the  emperor  and  the  weakness  of  the  pontiff.  This  assem- 
bly, indeed,  shows  the  happy  effects  both  of  pecuniary  and 
imperial  dialectics.  The  council  of  Ephesus,  according  to  Ibas, 
was  corrupted  by  the  gold  of  Cyril.  The  saint,  says  the  bishop, 
*  gained  the  ears  of  all  by  the  poison  which  blinds  the  eyes  of 
the  wise.'2  John  and  Cyril,  indeed,  headed  two  rival  and  jar- 
ring cabals.  Each  issued  its  creed,  and  appealed,  not  to  the 
Roman  pontiff  but  to  the  Roman  emperor,  for  the  orthodoxy 
of  its  faith.  His  infallibility,  on  the  occasion,  was  not  even 
consulted.  Theodosius,  at  first,  seemed  favourable  to  the  Nes- 
torian  faction.  He  afterward  veered  round  to  Cyril's  party  ; 
and  the  change;  it  appears,  was  owing  to  the  efficacy  of  pecu- 
niary logic.  Cyril,  says  Acacius,  bribed  Scholasticus  a  cour- 
tier, who  influenced  the  mind  of  Theodosius.  The  emperor, 
not  the  pontiff,  confirmed  the  synodal  decision  and  stamped 
the  faith  of  Cyril  with  the  seal  of  orthodoxy.3 

Justinian,  in  like  manner,  in  the  fifth  general  council,  pre- 
vailed against  Vigilius.  This  assembly,  indeed,  enjoyed  no 
freedom,  and  showed  no  deference  to  the  pontiff.  Liberatus, 
Lupus,  and  Eustathius  have  adduced  weighty  imputations 
against  its  validity.  According  to  Liberatus,  the  council,  whose 
subject  of  discussion  was  the  silly  productions  of  Ibas,  Theo- 
doret,  and  Theodorus,  was  convened  by  the  machinations  of 
Theodorus  of  Caesarea,  and  was  swayed  by  his  influence  with 
Justinian  and  Theodora,  the  emperor  and  empress.  The 
episcopal  courtier  was  an  enthusiastic  admirer  of  Origen,  and  a 
concealed  partizan  of  Monophysitism.  The  fanciful  theologian 
was  his  darling  author,  and  the  heretical  theology  was  his  de- 
voted system.  He  was,  in  consequence,  an  enemy  to  Theodo- 
rus of  Mopsuestia,  who  had  written  against  Origen,  and  to  the 
council  of  Chalcedon,  which  had  approved  his  works,  contained 
in  the  celebrated  three  chapters,  the  mighty  topic  of  imperial 
animadversion  and  synodal  reprehension.  The  Csesarean  dig- 

1  Qua  circumventions  cum  sanctis  episcopis  gestum  sit,  ut  non  conscriptis  canon- 
ibus  subscribere  sint  coacti.  Crabb.  1.  938.  Lucentius  fut  reduit  a  faire  une 
protestation  contre  ce  qui  s'  etoit  fait  en  cela.  Goclea.  3.  500,  503. 

*  Aures  omnium  veneno  obcaecanti  oculos  sapientium  obtinuit.     Labb.   6.    131. 

»  Godeau,  3.  310.     Labb.  3.  574.     Liberatus,  c.  VI.  Evag.  1   :.     Lupus,  c.  XL1. 


WANT    OF    FREEDOM    IN    COUNCILS.  149 

nitary,  however,  notwithstanding  his  heterodoxy,  found  means 
of  ingratiating  himself  with  the  emperor  and  empress.  He  in- 
sinuated himself  into  the  royal  favour  and  ruled  the  royal  councils. 
This  influence  he  used  for  the  discredit  of  the  Chalcedonian 
synod  and  the  condemnation  of  the  Mopsuestian  critic.  He 
persuaded  Justinian  to  issue  an  edict  against  the  writings  of  Ibas, 
Theodoret,  and  Theodorus,  which  had  been  sanctioned  at 
Chalcedon.  These  writers,  Pontius,  an  African  bishop,  in  a 
letter  to  Vigilius,  represents  as  the  authors  whom  the  holy  synod 
of  Chalcedon  had  receired.1  The  emperor,  also,  actuated  by 
his  counsellor's  suggestions,  called  an  ecumenical  council  for 
the  confirmation  of  his  edict,  and  the  condemnation  of  the  ob- 
noxious publications.  This  assembly,  according  to  Liberatus 
a  contemporary  historian,  acknowledged  the  charms  of  the  im- 
perial gold,  and  submission  to  the  imperial  will.  The  emperor, 
says  the  Carthaginian  deacon,  '  prevailed  on  the  occasion,  by 
bribery  and  banishment.  He  enriched  those  who  promoted  his 
designs,  and  banished  all  who  resisted.'2 

The  allegations  of  Liberatus  have  been  repeated  by  Lupus 
and  Eustathius.  According  to  Lupus,  *  Justinian  became  a 
Dioclesian,  and  the  Grecian  prelacy  became  the  tools  of  his  im- 
perial despotism.'3  '  All  things,'  says  Eustathius,  '  were  effected 
by  violence.'  Certain  it  is,  however  these  things  be  determined, 
that  the  Roman  pontiff  opposed  the  Roman  emperor  and  the 
universal  council  in  all  its  sessions. 

But  the  sovereign  and  the  fathers  proceeded  in  the  synodal 
decisions,  without  hesitation  or  delay.  Vigilius  refused  to  sign 
the  sentence  of  the  council.  But  his  majesty  compelled  his  in- 
fallibility, unwilling  as  he  was,  to  confirm  decisions  which  his 
holiness  hated,  and  to  sanction  enactments,  against  which,  in 
the  most  solemn  manner,  he  had  protested.  A  convention, 
assembled  in  this  manner  by  stratagem,  disputing  about  nothing, 
corrupted  by  the  emperor,  repealing  the  decision  of  a  former 
general  council,  and  acting  in  unrelenting  hostility  to  the  vicar- 
general  of  God,  constituted  the  fifth  general,  unerring,  holy 
Roman  council. 

The  eight  eastern  councils,  in  this  manner,  were  subject  to 
the  control  of  the  Roman  emperor ;  and  the  western,  in  the 
same  way,  were  swayed  by  the  authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff. 
The  pope  became  as  arbitrary  and  despotic  among  the  Latins, 

1  Les  auteurs,  que  le  saint  concile  de  Chalcedoine  avoit  recus.     Godeau,  4.  230. 

3  Consentientes  episcopi  in  Trium  damnationem  Capitulcrum  muneribus  dita- 
bantur,  vel  non  consentientes.  deposit!;  in  exilium  missi  sunt.  Liberatus,  c. 
XXIV.  Crabb.»2.  121. 

*  In  hac  synodo,  Justinianus  Diocletianum  indicerat :  ejus  aSectibus  serviebant 
omnes  Graocorum  episcopi.  Lupus,  1.  737.  Bruy.  1.  330. 


150  THE  VARIATIONS  OF  POPERY: 

as  the  emperor  had  been  among  the  Greeks.  This  seivility 
of  the  Westerns  has  been  delineated  with  the  pencil  of  truth, 
by  Gibert,  Giannone,  Du  Pin,  and  Richerius.1  According  to 
Gibert,  *  the  pontiffs,  in  these  conventions,  did  as  they  pleased.' 
The  Roman  hierarchs,  says  Du  Pin, 4  established,  in  the  twelfth 
century,  their  sovereignty  in  the  Roman  city,  and  their  inde- 
pendence on  the  Roman  emperor ;  and  even  assumed  the  right 
of  conferring  the  imperial  crown.  Their  power  over  the  state 
and  the  magistracy,  was  attended  with  additional  authority  and 
jurisdiction  over  the  church  and  clergy.  Councils  were  con- 
vened by  their  summons,  and  the  synodal  constitutions  were 
their  productions.  The  popes  were  the  authors  of  the  eccle- 
siastical canons,  to  which  the  prelacy  only  gave  their  assent. 
The  assembly  merely  sanctioned  the  will  of  the  hierarch.'  The 
councils,  in  the  twelfth  century,  were,  according  to  Giannone, 
1  called  by  the  pontiff,  who,  in  these  meetings,  made  such  regu- 
lations as  were  conducive  to  his  own  grandeur,  while  the  as- 
sembled bishops  only  consented.' 

Richerius  writes  in  the  same  strain  as  Du  Pin,  Gibert,  and 
Giannone.  Synodal  liberty,  according  to  this  author, '  departed 
with  the  elevation  of  Gregory  the  Seventh  to  the  papacy.  This 
patron  of  ecclesiastical  despotism,  contrary  to  the  custom  of 
more  than  a  thousand  years,  compelled  the  clergy  of  Christen- 
dom to  swear  fidelity  to  the  Roman  See  :  and  this  stretch  of 
papalpower,  in  a  short  time,  introduced  spiritual  slavery.  The 
pontiffs,  according  to  the  same  historian,  continued,  from  the 
accession  of  Gregory  till  the  council  of  Constance,  embracing  a 
period  of  340  years,  to  assume  the  authority  of  framing  canons 
and  definitions  at  the  Vatican,  and  then  summoned  servile  synods 
to  sanction  their  arbitrary  and  oppressive  dictations.' 

A  similar  statement,  in  reference  to  the  oath  of  fidelity  to  the 
pope,  is  given  by  Gibert  and  Pithou  in  their  editions  of  the 
canon-law.  In  Gibert' s  statements  '  bishops  should  swear  fideli- 
ty to  the  pope,'  and  in  Pithou's  *  all  who,  in  the  present  day, 
receive  any  dignity  from  the  pope,  take  an  oath  of  fidelity  to 
his  holiness.'2  Pius  the  Fourth,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
which,  in  1564,  he  annexed  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  exacts  an 
oath  of  the  same  kind.  According  to  this  bull,  issued  by  the 
pope  and  received  by  the  prelacy,  all  the  beneficed  clergy  in 
the  Romish  communion,  '  promise  and  swear  obedience  to  the 

1  Pontificem  in  iis  feciose  quidquid  libuit.  Gibert,  1.  100.  Du  Pin,  Cen.  XII. 
c.  XX.  Giaunon,  XIV.  3.  Rich.  c.  38. 

3  Episcopi  Papse  debent  juejurandum.  Gibert,  3.  206.  Hodie  omnes  accipientes 
dignitatem  a  Papa  sibi  jurat.  Pithou,  107. 

Romano  Pontifici  verara  obedientiam  spondeo  ac  juro.  Labb.  20.  222.  Barclay, 
11.  c.  2. 


WANT    OF    FREEDOM     IN    COUNCILS.  151 

Roman  pontiff. '     This  obligation,  it  is  plain,  is  inconsistent  with 
freedom  or  independence. 

This  servility  and  compulsion  appeared  in  all  the  ten  Latin 
councils,  and  in  none  more  than  in  the  council  of  Trent.  The 
Trentines  were  under  the  control  of  the  Roman  court.  His 
holiness  filled  the  council  with  hungry  and  pensioned  Italians, 
who  voted  as  he  pleased.  The  Italians,  in  this  assembly, 
amounted  to  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven ;  while  those  of 
other  nations  mustered  only  eighty.  The  French,  Spanish,  and 
Germans,  indeed,  endeavored  to  maintain  the  freedom  of  the 
assembly;  but  were  overwhelmed  by  numbers.  The  French 
and  Spanish,  however,  both  confessed  the  thraldom  of  the 
synod.  The  cardinal  of  Lorraine  complained  of  papal  influ- 
ence. Lausac,  the  French  ambassador,  declared  that  the 
Roman  court  was  master  in  the  council  and  opposed  the 
reformation.  Claudius,  a  French  Trentine  theologian,  said,  in 
a  letter  to  Espensaeus,  *  you  would  die  with  grief,  if  you  should 
see  the  villany  which  is  here  perpetrated  for  the  purpose  of 
evading  a  reformation.1  The  Spanish  declared  that  the  council 
contained  more  than  forty,  who  received  monthly  pensions  from 
the  Roman  court.  Richerius  as  well  as  Paolo  admits  the  utter 
absence  of  all  liberty  in  the  Council  of  Trent 

1  Prae  -dolore,  mortuus  es,  si  ea  vidisses  quse  ad  eludendam  refonnationem, 
infanda  pntrantur.  Claud.  Ep.  ad  Espen.  Paolo.  II.  V.  VI.  A  la  teaue  d'ttfl  «iOt> 
ciie  libra,  celui  de  Trente  ne  Vetant  pai.  Pool.  1.  216.  ot  2.  416. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


SUPREMACY. 

FOO*  VARIATIONS — POPE'S  PRESIDENCY— HIS  SOVEREIGNTY  OR  DESPOTISM— HIS 
SUPPOSED  EQUALITY  WITH  GOD HIS  ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  TO  GOD SCRIP- 
TURAL PROOF TRADITIONAL  EVIDENCE ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  THE  ROMAN  CHURCH 

CAUSES  OF  ITS  PRIMACY EMINENCE  OF  THE  CITY FALSE  DECRETALS — MISSIONS 

OPPOSITION  FROM  ASIA,  AFRICA,  FRANCE,  SPAIN,  ENGLAND,  AND  IRELAND UNI- 
VERSAL BISHOP — USURPATIONS  OF  NICHOLAS,  JOHN,  GREGORY,  INNOCENT,  AND 
BONIFACE. 

THE  Supremacy  is,  by  the  patrons  of  Romanism,  uniformly 
ascribed  to  the  pope.  This  title  the  partisans  of  popery  use  to 
represent  the  Roman  hierarch's  superiority  in  the  church.  But 
the  authority  attached  to  this  dignity,  remains  to  the  present 
day  undecided.  Opinions  on  this  topic  have  floated  at  freedom, 
unfixed  by  any  acknowledged  standard,  and  uncontrolled  by 
any  recognized  decision.  The  Romish  doctors,  in  consequence, 
have,  on  the  pontificial  supremacy,  roved  at  random  through 
all  the  gradations  and  forms  of  diversified  and  conflicting 
systems. 

These  systems  are  many,  and,  as  might  be  expected,  are 
distinguished  in  many  instances  by  trifling  and  evanescent 
shades  of  discrimination.  A  full  enumeration  would  be  end- 
less, and,  at  the  same  time,  is  useless.  The  chief  variations  on 
this  topic  may  be  reduced  to  four.  One  confers  a  mere  presi- 
dency; and  the  second  an  unlimited  sovereignty  on  the  Roman 
pontiff.  The  third  makes  the  pope  equal — and  the  fourth 
superior,  to  God. 

One  variety  restricts  the  Roman  pontiff  to  a  mere  presidency, 
similar  to  the  moderator's  in  the  Scottish  assembly,  or  the  pro- 
locutor's in  the  English  convocation.  The  first  among  his 
equals,  he  is  not  the  church's  master,  but  its  minister.  Such  are 
the  statements  of  Du  Pin,  Rigaltius,  Filaster,  Gibert,  and  Paolo.1 

1  Petrum  inter  Apostolos  primum  locum  obtinuisse.  Du  Pin,  313.  Primum 
esse  Romanum  Pontificem.  Du  Pin,  333. 

Non  iraperium,  non  dominatum,  non  potentatum,  sed  primum  Locum.  Du  Pin, 
314.  Le  Pape  lui-meme  n'est  que  le  premier  entre  les  pretres.  Lenfant,  1.  107. 


VARIATIONS    IN    THE    PAPAL    SUPREMACY.  153 

The  pontiff,  says  Du  Pin,  *  like  Peter  among  the  apostles,  ob- 
tains the  first  place.  The  pontiff  has  no  power  over  the  church, 
but  the  church,  on  the  contrary,  over  the  pontiff.'  The  Roman 
hierarch,  says  Rigaltius,  quoted  by  Du  Pin,  'possesses  not 
jurisdiction,  dominion  or  sovereignty,  but  the  first  place.'  Car 
dinal  Filaster,  in  the  council  of  Constance,  and  without  any 
opposition,  reckoned  *  the  pope  only  the  first  among  the  priests. 
The  pope,  says  Gibert,  '  is  only  the  first  of  the  bishops.'  The 
Roman  hierarch,  according  to  Paolo,  '  is  chief,  not  in  authority, 
but  in  order,  as  the  president  of  an  assembly.'  This  presidency, 
therefore,  Du  Pin,  observes,  is  only  a  primacy  of  order  and 
unity ;  which  indeed,  is  necessary  for  the  efficiency  and  co- 
operation of  every  society. 

This  primacy  authorizes  a  general  superintendence,  allows 
the  possessor  to  watch  over  the  faith  and  morality  of  the  whole 
community,  and  to  enforce  the  observance  of  the  ecclesiastical 
canons.  The  power,  however,  is  executive,  not  legislative ; 
and  extends,  not  to  the  enactment,  but  merely  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  laws.  The  Pontiff's  doctrinal  definitions  and  moral 
instructions,  are,  on  account  of  his  dignity,  entitled  to  attention , 
but  depend  on  their  general  reception  for  their  validity.  The 
pontifical  primacy,  or,  as  some  say,  monarchy,  is,  according  to 
this  system,  limited  by  prelatical  aristocracy.  The  episcopacy, 
in  other  words,  restricts  the  popedom.  The  Roman  pontiff  is 
inferior  to  a  general  council,  by  which  he  may,  for  heresy  or 
immorality,  be  tried  and  deposed,  and  which  does  not  necessarily 
require  his  summons,  presidency,  or  confirmation  ;  though  these 
may,  on  some  occasions,  be  a  matter  of  convenience.  The 
patrons  of  this  system  deprecate  the  papal  claims  to  infallibility ; 
and  view  with  detestation,  all  the  Roman  hierarch' s  pretensions 
to  the  deposition  of  kings,  the  transferring  of  kingdoms,  and  the 
absolution  of  subjects  from  the  oath  of  fidelity.1 

The  French  have  patronized  this  system  on  the  subject  of  the 
papal  primacy.  The  Gallican  church  maintains  this  plan  of 
moderation  and  freedom,  and  disclaims  the  ultraism  and  ser- 
vility of  the  Italian  school.  The  same  views  have  been  enter- 
tained by  the  university  of  Paris,  followed  by  those  of  Angiers, 
Orleans,  Bononia,  Louvain,  Herford,  Cracow,  and  Colonia. 
The  Sorbonne,  in  several  instances,  pronounced  the  contrary 


Aliud  non  sit  Papa  quam  episcoporum  primus.     Gibert,  3.  336. 

Inter  aequales  episcopos,  primum  gradum  obtineat,  primus  inter  pares.  De 
Prim.  206. 

Le  Pape  est  ministre  de  1'eglise;  il  ii'en  est  pas  le  maltre.     Apol.  2.  82. 

1  Us  le  ci-oyent  sou  mis  aux  conciles  Generaux.  Moreri,  1.  40.  Du  Pin,  335. 
Arsdekin,  1.  113.  Hotman,  321. 


154  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

opinion  a  heresy.1  The  same  scheme  has  been  supported  by 
many  distinguished  theologians,  such  as  Gerson,  Cusan,  Tos- 
tatus,  Aliaco,  Vittoria,  Richerius,  Soto,  Dionysius,  Launoy, 
Driedo,  Pluen,  Filaster,  Vigorius,  Marca,  and  Du  Pin  ;  and 
these,  again,  have  been  followed  by  the  Roman  pontiffs,  Pius, 
Julius,  Siricius,  Zozimus,  Celestine,  Sixtus,  Gregory,  Eugenius, 
Innocent,  and  Adrian.2 

A  similar  subordination  of  the  papal  power  was  patronized 
by  the  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil.  The  Pisans  de- 
clared the  superiority  of  a  general  council  over  the  Roman 
pontiff;  degraded  Benedict  and  Gregory  and  elected  Alexan- 
der.3 The  Constantians,  treading  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Pisans, 
defined,  in  the  fourth  session,  the  subjection  of  a  pope  to  a 
council,  and  denounced  condign  punishment  on  all  persons,  of 
every  state  and  dignity,  even  the  papal,  who  should  disobey 
the  synodal  enactments.4  The  BasUians,  in  their  second  session, 
renewed  the  decision  of  Constance  with  its  penalty  against  all 
transgressors.  The  council  of  Basil,  besides,  in  its  thirty-third 
session,  declared  the  superiority  of  a  general  council  to  a 
Roman  hierarch,  and  its  incapability  of  being  dissolved,  pro- 
rogued, or  transferred  against  its  consent,  to  be  truths  of  the 
Catholic  faith.  Pertinacity  in  the  denial  of  these  truths,  the 
holy  unerring  Fathers  pronounced  a  heresy.  The  inferiority 
of  a  pope  to  an  universal  synod,  and  his  incompetency  to  order 
its  dissolution,  adjournment,  or  translation  are,  according  to  an 
infallible  council,  doctrines  of  Catholicism,  and  respect  not 
discipline  but  the  faith.5 

A  second  variety  allows  the  pope  an  unlimited  sovereignty. 
The  abettors  of  this  system,  overstepping  the  bounds  of  mode- 
ration, would  exalt  the  primacy  into  a  despotism.  The  pope- 
dom,  according  to  these  speculators,  is  a  monarchy,  unlimited 
by  democracy  or  aristocracy,  by  the  laity  or  the  clergy.  The 
Roman  pontiff's  power  is  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical,  extend- 
ing both  to  the  church  and  the  state ;  and  legislative  as  well 
as  executive,  comprehending  in  its  measureless  range  both  the 
making  and  enforcing  of  laws.  He  is  clothed  with  uncontrolled 
authority  over  the  church,  the  clergy,  councils,  and  kings.  He 

1  Qui  decent  contrarium,  haereticos  esse  censet.     Du  Pin,  421.     L'eglise  Gal- 
Hcane   ont   approuve   le   decret  de   la  superior-it^    des   conciles   sur  les   Papes. 
Milletot,  572. 

2  Launoy,  1.  295,  314.     Du  Pin,  442.     Fabulottus,  c.  2. 

3  Concilium  generate  universam  repraesentans  ecclesiam  esse  superius  Papae.   Du 
Pin,  404. 

4  Cui  quilibet  cujuscumque  status  vel  dignitatis,  etiara  si  papalis  existat,  obire 
tenetur.    Labb.  1(5.73.    Summum  pontificem  subesse  conciliis  generalibus.    Gibert, 
2.  7.     Cossart,  4.  113. 

6  Est  veritas  ndei  Catholicae.  Veritatibus  duabus  praedictis  pertinaciter  repug- 
nans  est  censendus  haereticus.  Labb.  17.  236,  390.  II  raerite  d'etre  cense  hereti- 
que.  Bruy,  4.  126.  Du  Pin,  3.  38.  Hotman,  321,  322. 


SUPREMACY    OF    THE    POPE.  155 

has  a  right,  both  in  a  legislative  and  executive  capacity,  to 
govern  the  universal  church,  and  to  ordain,  judge,  suspend,  and 
depose  bishops,  metropolitans,  and  patriarchs  through  Christen- 
dom. These  receive  their  authority  from  the  pope,  as  he  re- 
ceives his  from  God.  He  possesses  a  superiority  over  general 
councils,  which,  for  legitimation  and  validity,  require  pontifical 
convocation,  presidency,  and  ratification.  He  is  the  supreme 
judge  of  controversy,  and,  in  this  capacity,  receives  appeals 
from  the  whole  church.  He  is  vested  with  temporal  as  weU  as 
spiritual  authority  ;  and  may  depose  sovereigns,  transfer  king- 
doms, and  absolve  subjects  from  the  oath  of  fealty.  His  chief 
prerogative  is  infallibility.  The  Roman  pontiff,  unlike  other 
frail  mortals,  is,  at  least  in  his  official  sentences,  which  he  pro- 
nounces from  the  chair,  exempted  from  all  possibility  of  error 
or  mistake.1 

Such  is  the  monstrous  system  of  the  Italian  school  on  the 
papal  supremacy.  The  Transalpine  faction,  who  are  depend- 
ant and  servile  minions  of  the  Roman  court,  clothe  the  pontiff 
with  all  this  superhuman  power  and  authority.  This  party  has 
been  supported  in  these  views  by  Jesuits,  canonists,  theologians, 
popes,  and  councils.  The  votaries  of  Jesuitism,  dispersed 
through  the  world,  have  advocated  the  unlimited  authority  of  the 
popedom,  with  their  accustomed  erudition  and  sophistry.  The 
canonists,  such  as  Gratian  and  Pithou,  have,  in  general,  been 
friends  to  the  plentitude  of  pontifical  jurisdiction  arid  despotism. 
These  have  been  supported  by  an  host  of  theologians  and  school- 
men, such  as  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius,  Turrecrema,  Sari- 
derus,  Perron,  Pighius,  Carranza,  Fabulottus,  Lainez,  Jacoba- 
tius,  Arsdekin,  Antonius,  Canus,  Cajetan,  Aquinas,  Turrianno, 
Lupus,  Campeggio,  and  Bonaventura. 

The  Roman  hierarchs,  as  might  be  expected,  have,  in 
general,  maintained  the  papal  power.  Celestine,  Gelasius,  Leo, 
Nicholas,  Gregory,  Urban,  Pascal,  Boniface,  Clement,  and 
Paul  supported  their  overgrown  tyranny  with  peculiar  resolution 
and  energy.  Gregory  the  Seventh  subjected,  not  only  the 
church  but  the  state,  and  monopolized  both  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical power.  Boniface  the  Eighth  taught  the  necessity  of  sub- 
mission to  the  pontiff  for  the  attainment  of  salvation.  Paul  the 
Fourth  seems  to  have  been  a  model  of  pontifical  ambition,  arro- 
gance, haughtiness,  and  tyranny.  His  infallibility  contemned 

1  Du  Pin,  333.  Bell.  IV.  1,  15,  et  .  6.  Gibert,  3.  36,  487.  Cajetan,  c.  I. 
Extrav.  52,  101.  Labb.  18.  1428.  Fabul.  c.  II. 

Sub  ratione  regminis  monarchic!.  Dens,  2.  147.  In  Papa  residet  suprema 
potestas.  Faber,  2.  384. 

Ecclesiam  Christus  instituerit  instar  regni,  in  qua  unus,  caeteris  imperit.  Labb. 
20.  670. 

Papa  est  Dominas  temporalis  totius  orbis.     Barclay,  17 


156  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

the  authority  of  councils  and  kings.  The  papal  power  he 
maintained,  was  unbounded  and  above  all  synods  ;  and  this, 
he  caUed  an  article  of  faith ;  and  the  contrary,  he  denomi- 
nated a  heresy.1  His  holiness  declared  himself  the  successor 
of  one  who  had  deposed  emperors  and  kings,  and  superior  to 
princes,  whom  he  would  not  acknowledge  as  his  companions, 
but  use  as  his  footstool.  This  vain  glory,  these  empty  boasts, 
his  infallibility  enforced  with  the  stamp  of  his  foot  and  the 
thunder  of  his  apostolic  voice. 

The  Italian  system,  on  the  supremacy,  was  patronized  also 
by  the  councils  of  Florence,  Lateran,  and  Trent.  Eugenius, 
in  the  Florentine  Convention  and  with  its  approbation,  declared, 
in  the  thirteenth  session,  the  superiority  of  the  pope  to  a 
council,  whose  enactments  he  was  authorized  by  his  apostolic 
prerogative  to  change  or  repeal.  The  pontifical  dissolution  or 
translation  of  a  council,  he  declared,  is  no  heresy,  notwithstanding 
the  contrary  sentence  of  the  Basilian  assembly,  whose  acts,  he 
affirmed,  were  unjust  and  foolish,  and  contrary  to  the  laws  of 
God  and  man.  The  Florentines  vested  his  infallibility  with  the 
vicegerency  of  God,  and  authority  to  teach  all  Christians,  and 
the  supremacy  over  the  whole  world.2 

The  fifth  council  of  the  Lateran  clothed  Leo  with  equal 
power.  This  convention  decreed  the  superiority  of  the  Roman 
pontiff  over  all  councils,  and  his  full  power  and  right  of  synodal 
convocation,  translation,  and  dissolution.  This  assembly  also 
renewed  the  bull  of  Boniface,  which  declared  the  subjection  of 
all  Christians  to  the  Roman  pontiff  necessary  for  salvation.3 

The  council  of  Trent,  on  this  subject,  was  not  so  explicit  as 
those  of  Florence  and  the  Lateran.  The  French  and  Spanish, 
in  this  synod,  withstood  the  Italians,  and  prevented  the  free 
expression  of  Ultramontane  servility.  The  council,  however, 
in  its  fourteenth  session,  ascribed  to  the  pope  'the  supreme 
power  in  the  universal  church.'4  The  pontiff,  said  Cardillusto 
the  Trentine  fathers,  without  any  disclaimer,  '  holds,  as  a  mor- 
tal God,  the  place  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  cannot  be  judged  by 

1  C'etoit  un  article  de  foi,  et  que  de  dire  le  contraire  etoit  une  her6sie.     Paolo, 
2.  27.     Labb.  19.  968. 

2  Constat  synodum  pontifici  esse  inferiorem.     Labb.   18.   1320.    Papa  est  super 
potestatem  ecclesiae  universalis  et  concilii  gencralis.     Cajetan,  1.  10. 

Dissolutionem  sive  translationem  concilii  hacresim  non  pertinere.  Labb.  18. 
1321.  Romanum  Pontificem  in  universum  orbem  tenere  primatum,  et  verum 
Christi  vicarium,  existere.  Labb.  1.8.  526.  1152.  Gibert,  1.  93. 

3  Solum   Romanum   Pontificem,    tanquam   auctoritatem   super   omnia    concilia 
habentem,  tarn  conciliorum  dicendorum,  transferendorum,  dissolvendoram  plenum 
jus  et  potestatem  habere.     Labb.  19.  967.     Bruys,  4.  806.     Du  Pin  430. 

4  Pro  suprema  potestate  sibi  in  ecclesia  universa  tradita.     Labb.  20.  9G.    Gibert, 
1.181.     Dens,  8.  232. 

Is  Christi  vicem  gerit  in  terris,  tanquam  mortalis  Deus:  neque  a  concilio  general! 
Pontifex  judicari  potest.  Cardil.  in  Labb.  20.  671,  1177. 


SUPPOSED    EQUALITY    OF    THE    POPE    WITH    GOD.  157 

a  general  council.'     This  avowal  is  inconsistent  with  Cisalpine 
liberality  and  independence. 

The  French,  therefore,  in  this  manner,  oppose  the  Italians 
on  the  topic  of  papal  supremacy.  These  two  schools  are, 
on  this  question,  at  open  war.  Theologian  withstands  theolo- 
gian. Gerson,  Alliaco,  Richerius,  Launoy,  Almain,  Paolo, 
Marca,  Du  Pin,  Carron,  and  Walsh,  encounter  Baronius, 
Bellarmine,  Binius,  Carranza,  Turiano,  Turrecrema,  Arsdekin, 
Cajetcin,  Aquinas,  and  Bonaventura.  The  universities  of  Paris, 
Anglers,  Orleans,  Toulouse,  Bononia,  Louvain,  Cracow, 
Cologne,  and  Herford  may  be  pitted  against  the  schoolmen, 
the  Jesuits,  and  the  Roman  court.  Pope  charges  pope,  in 
dreadful  affray.  Damasus,  Felix,  Siricius,  Celestine,  and  Pius 
lead  their  phalanx  against  the  squadrons  of  Leo,  Gregory, 
Urban,  Nicholas,  Pascal  Paul,  and  Sixtus.  General  councils 
stand  in  array  against  general  councils.  The  Pisans,  Constan- 
tians,  and  Basilians  wage  ware  against  the  Florentines,  Laterans, 
and  Trentines  ;  and  hurl  mutual  anathemas  from  their  spiritual 
artillery. 

A  third  variety  would  raise  the  pope  to  an  equality  with  God. 
The  Italian  school,  one  would  expect,  confers  a  power  on  the 
Roman  hierarch  calculated  to  satisfy  the  highest  ambition.  But 
the  Transalpine  system  does  not  terminate  the  progression.  A 
third  description  of  flatterers  have  proceeded  to  greater  ex- 
travagancy, and  vested  his  holiness  with  ampler  prerogatives. 
These,  in  the  exorbitance  of  papal  adulation,  have  insulted 
reason,  outraged  common  sense,  and  ascended,  in  their  impious 
progress,  through  all  the  gradations  of  blasphemy.  Pretended 
Christians  have  ascribed  that  Divinity  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  which 
the  Pagans  attributed  to  the  Roman  emperors.  Domitian,  ad- 
dressing his  subjects  in  his  proclamation,  signed  himself  their 
1  Lord  God.'  Caligula  arrogated  the  name  of '  the  Greatest  and 
Best  God ;'  while  Sapor,  the  Persian  monarch,  affected,  with 
more  modesty,  to  be  only  '  the  Brother  of  the  Sun  and  Moon.'1 
This  blasphemy  has  been  imitated  by  the  minions  of  his  Roman 
infallibility.  The  pope,  says  the  gloss  of  the  canon  law,  *  is  not 
a  man.'  This  awkward  compliment  is  intended  to  place  his 
holiness  above  humanity.  According  to  Turrecrema  and  Bar 
clay,  '  some  DOCTORLINGS  wish,  in  their  adulation,  to  equal  the 
pontiff  to  God.'  These,  says  Gerson,  quoted  by  Carron  and 
Giannone,  '  esteem  the  pope  a  God,  who  has  all  power  in  heaven 
and  earth.'  The  sainted  Bernard  affirms  that,  l  none,  except 
God,  is  like  the  pope,  either  in  heaven  or  on  earth.'2 

1  Suetonius,  322,  555. 

3  Papa  non  est  homo.     Sext.  Decret.     L.  I.  Tit.  VI.  c.  18. 

Doctorculi  volant  adalando  eos  quasi  sequiparare  Deo.  Barclay,  219.    Torrecrem. 


158  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

The  name  and  the  works  of  God  have  been  appropriated  to 
the  pope,  by  theologians,  canonists,  popes,  and  councils. 
Gratian,  Pithou,  Durand,  Jacobatius,  Musso,  Gibert,  Gregory, 
Nicholas,  Innocent,  the  canon  law,  and  the  Lateran  council  have 
complimented  his  holiness  with  the  name  of  deity,  or  bestowed 
on  him  the  vicegerency  of  heaven.  Pithou,  Gibert,  Durand, 
Jacobatius,  Musso,  and  Gratian,  on  the  authority  of  the  canon 
law,  style  the  pontiff  the  Almighty's  vicegerent,  '  who  occupies 
the  place,  not  of  a  mere  man,  but  of  the  true  God.'  According 
to  Gregory  the  Second,  '  The  whole  Western  Nations  reckoned 
Peter  a  terrestrial  God,'  and  the  Roman  pontiff,  of  course, 
succeeds  to  the  title  and  the  estate.  This  blasphemy,  Gratian 
copied  into  the  canon  law.  *  The  emperor  Constantine,'  says 
Nicholas  the  First,  'conferred  the  appellation  of  God  on  the 
pope,  who,  therefore,  being  God,  cannot  be  judged  by  man.' 
According  to  Innocent  the  Third,  '  the  pope  holds  the  place  of 
the  true  God.'  The  canon  law,  in  the  gloss,  denominates  the 
Roman  hierarch, '  our  Lord  God.'  The  canonists,  in  general, 
reckon  the  pope  the  one  God,  who  hath  all  power,  human  and 
divine,  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Marcellus  in  the  Lateran 
council  and  with  its  full  approbation,  called  Julius,  '  God  on 
earth.'1  This  was  the  act  of  a  general  council,  and,  therefore, 
in  the  popish  account,  is  the  decision  of  infallibility. 

The  works  as  well  as  the  name  of  God  have  been  ascribed 
to  the  pope,  by  Innocent,  Jacobatius,  Durand,  Decius,  Lainez, 
the  canon  law,  and  the  Lateran  council.  *  The  pope  and  the 
Lord,'  in  the  statement  of  Innocent,  Jacobatius  and  Decius, 
'  form  the  same  tribunal,  so  that,  sin  excepted,  the  pope  can  do 
nearly  all  that  God  can  do.'  Jacobatius,  in  his  modesty,  uses 
the  qualifying  expression  nearly,  which  Decius,  with  more  ef- 
frontery, rejects  as  unnecessary.  The  pontiff,  say  Jacobatius 
and  Durand,  '  possesses  a  plentitude  of  power,  and  none  dare 
say  to  him,  any  more  than  to  God,  Lord,  what  dost  thou  ?  He 
can  change  the  nature  of  things,  and  make  nothing  out  of  some- 
thing and  something  out  of  nothing.'  These  are  not  the  mere 

Q.  II.  Estiment  Papam  unicum  Deum  esse  qui  habet  potestatem  omnera  in  coelo 
et  in  terra.  Carron,  34.  Giannon,  X.  12.  Prseter  Deum,  non  est  similis  ei  neo 
in  coelo,  nee  in  terra.  Bernard,  1725.  2.  These.  II.  4. 

1  Papa  vicem  non  puri  hominis,  sed  veri  Dei,  gerens  in  terra.  Jacob.  VII. 
Barclay,  222.  Pithou,  29.  Decret.  I.  Tit.  VII.  c.  III.  Papa  locum  Dei  tenet  in 
terris.  Gibert,  2.  9.  Durand.  1.  51.  Omnia  Occidents  regna,  velut  Deum  terres- 
trem  habent.  Labb.  8.  666.  Bruy.  2.  100.  Constantino  Deum  appellatum,  cum 
nee  posse  Deum  ab  hominibus  judicari  manifestum  est.  Labb.  9.  1572.  Dominus 
Deus  noster  Papa.  Extrav.  Tit.  XIV.  c.  IV.  Walsh,  p.  IX.  Deus  in  terris. 
Labb.  19.  731.  Bin.  9.  54. 

Canonist®  dicunt,  Papam  esse  unum  Deum,  qui  habet  potestatem  omnem  in 
cffilo  et  in  terra.  Potestatem  omnem  et  Divinam  et  humanam  Papae  tribuunt 
Barclay,  2,  4,  920. 


ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  OF  THE  POPE  TO  GOD.     159 

imaginations  of  Jacobatius,  Durand,  and  Decius ;  but  are  found, 
in  all  their  absurdity,  in  the  canon  law,  which  attributes  to  the 
pope,  the  irresponsibility  of  the  Creator,  the  divine  power  of 
performing  the  works  of  God,  and  making  something  out  of 
nothing.  The  pope,  according  to  Lainez  at  the  council  of 
Trent,  '  has  the  power  of  dispensing  with  all  laws,  and  the  same 
authority  as  the  Lord.'  This,  exclaimed  Hugo,  '  is  a  scandal 
and  impiety  which  equals  a  mortal  to  the  immortal,  and  a  man 
to  God.'  An  archbishop,  in  the  last  Lateran  synod,  called 
Julius  '  prince  of  the  world  :'  and  another  orator  styled  Leo, 
'  the  possessor  of  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  who  presi- 
ded over  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  globe.'  This  blasphemy,  the 
holy,  unerring,  Roman  council  heard  without  any  disapproba- 
tion, and  the  pontiff  with  unmingled  complacency.  The  man 
of  sin  then  '  sat  in  the  temple  of  God,  and  showed  himself  that 
he  was  God.'  *  Some  popes,'  says  Coquille,  '  have  allowed 
themselves  to  be  called  omnipotent.'1 

A  fourth  variety,  on  this  subject,  makes  the  Pope  superior  to 
God.  Equality  with  the  Almighty,  it  might  have  been  expected 
would  have  satiated  the  ambition  of  the  pontiff  and  satisfied  the 
sycophancy  of  his  minions.  But  this  was  not  the  giddiest  step 
in  the  scale  of  blasphemy.  The  superiority  of  the  pope  over 
the  Creator,  has  been  boldly  and  unblushingly  maintained  by 
pontiffs,  theologians,  canonists,  and  councils. 

According  to  Cardinal  Zabarella,  'the  pontiffs,  in  their  arro- 
gance, assumed  the  accomplishment  of  all  they  pleased,  even  un- 
lawful things,  and  thus  raised  their  power  above  the  law  of 
God.'  The  canon  law  declares  that,  '  the  Pope,  in  the  pleni- 
tude of  his  power,  is  above  right,  can  change  the  substantial 
nature  of  things,  and  transform  unlawful  into  lawful.'2  Bellar- 
mine's  statement  is  of  a  similar  kind.  The  Cardinal  affirms 
that,  '  the  Pope  can  transubstantiate  sin  into  duty,  and  duty 
into  sin.'  He  can,  says  the  canon  law,  '  dispense  with  right.' 
Stephen,  archbishop  of  Petraca,  in  his  senseless  parasitism 
and  blasphemy,  declared,  in  the  council  of  the  Lateran,  that 

1  Papa  et  Christus  faciunt  idem  consistorium,  ita  quod,  excepto  peccato,  potest 
Papa  fere  omnia  facere,  quae  potest  Deus.  Jacob.  III.  Papae  nullus  audeat  discere, 
Domine,  cur  ita  facis  1  Extrav.  Tit.  IV.  c.  II.  Sicut  Deo  dici  non  potest,  cur  ita 
facis  ?  Ita  nee  in  iss,  quae  sunt  juris  positivi,  Papas  potest  dici  cur  hoc  facis  ? 
Jacob.  III.  De  aliquo  facit  nihil,  mutando  etiam  rei  naturam.  De  nihilo,  aliquid 
facit.  Durand,  1.  50.  Extrav.  De  Tran.  c.  1.  q.  6.  Coram  te,  hoc  est,  coram 
totius  orbis  principe.  Labb.  19.  700.  Tibi  data  est,  omnis  potestas,  in  coelo  etin 
terra.  Super  omnia  regna  mundi  sedens.  Labb.  19.  920,  927.  Du  Pin.  3.  602. 
2.  Thess.  II.  4.  Aucuns  ont  endure  d'etre  appeliez  omnipotens.  Coquille,  408. 

3  Pontifices  multa  sibi  arrogaverunt,  et  omnia  se  posse  existiment,  et  quidquid 
liberit,  etiam  illicita ;  sicque  supra  Dei  prssceptum  potestatem  illam  exteudisse. 
Zabarel.  de  Schism.  Thuan.  6.  397.  Habet  plenitudinem  potestantis,  et  supra 
jus  est.  Gibert,  2,  103.  Immutat  substautialem  rei  naturam  puta  faciendo  de 
illegitimo,  legitimum.  Durand,  1.  50. 


160  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

Leo  possessed  '  power  above  all  powers,  both  in  heaven  and  in 
earth.'1  The  son  of  perdition  then  '  exalted  himself  above  all 
that  is  called  God.'  This  brazen  blasphemy  passed  in  a  general 
council,  and  is,  therefore,  in  all  its  revolting  absurdity,  stamped 
with  the  seal  of  Roman  infallibility. 

But  the  chief  prerogative  of  the  Roman  hierarch  seems  to 
be  his  power  of  creating  the  Creator.2  Pascal  and  Urban 
plumed  themselves  on  this  attribute,  which,  according  to  their 
own  account,  raised  them  above  all  subjection  to  earthly 
sovereigns.  This,  however,  is  a  communicable  perfection,  and, 
in  consequence,  is  become  common  to  aU  the  sacerdotal  confra- 
ternity. His  holiness  keeps  a  transfer  office  at  the  Vatican,  in 
which  he  can  make  over  this  prerogative  to  all  his  deputies 
through  Christendom.  These,  in  consequence,  can  make  and 
eat,  create  and  swallow,  whole  thousands  of  pastry-gods  every 
day.  But  these  deities,  in  the  opinion  of  their  makers,  aret)er- 
haps  not  new  gods,  but  merely  new  editions  of  the  old  one. 

Those  who  would  restrict  his  infallibility  to  a  presidency,  and 
those  who  would  exalt  his  dignity  to  a  sovereignty,  contending 
with  one  another,  have  also  to  contend  with  such  as  maintain 
his  equality  or  superiority  to  God.  The  two  latter  descriptions, 
indeed,  seem  to  be  divided  by  a  thin  partition.  Having  elevated 
a  sinful  mortal  to  an  equality  with  Jehovah,  the  remaining  task 
of  conferring  a  superiority  was  easy.  But  both  vary  from  the 
French  and  Italian  schools,  as  well  as  from  reason  and  common 
sense. 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  opinions,  which  speculators  have  enter- 
tained of  the  pope's  jurisdiction  and  authority.  These  opinions 
have  not  been  confined  to  empty  speculation  ;  but  have,  as  far  as 
possible,  been  realized  in  action  on  the  wide  theatre  of  Christen- 
dom, and  before  the  public  gaze  of  an  astonished  world.  The 
Roman  hierarchy  has,  in  reality,  passed  through  all  the  grada- 
tions of  humility,  pride,  power,  despotism,  and  blasphemy. 

The  friends  of  Romanism  differ  as  much  in  the  proof  of  the 
supremacy  as  in  its  extent  and  signification.  The  pontiffs  and 
their  minions,  about  the  begining  of  the  fifth  century,  fabricated 
an  extraordinary  story  about  Pope  Peter's  Roman  episcopacy 
and  ecclesiastical  supremacy  ;  and  his  transmission  of  all  this 
honour  and  jurisdiction  to  his  pontifical  successors.  The  tale, 
if  arranged  with  judgment  and  written  with  elegance,  would 

1  Si  Papa  erraret  praecipiendo  vitia,  vel  prohibendo  virtutes,  teneretur  ecclesia 
credere  vitia  esse  bona,  et  virtutes,  malas.     Bellarmin,  IV.  5.     Possumus  supra  jus 
dispensare.     Decret.  Greg.  III.  8.  IV.    Extrav.  Comrn.  208.    Potestas  supra  omnes 
potestates  tamcoeli,  quam  terras .    Labb.  19.  924. 

2  Deum  cuncta  creantem  creent.     Hoveden,  268.     Labb.    12.   960.     Elev6s  a 
cet  honneur  supreme  de  creer  le  Createur,     Bray.  2.  535. 


ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  OF  THE  POPE  TO  GOD.     161 

make  an  entertaining  religious  novel ;  but  as  destitute  oi  evi- 
dence as  Roderic  Random,  Tristram  Shandy,  or  the  Seven 
Champions  of  Christendom.  The  fiction  too  has  been  composed 
by  bungling  and  tasteless  authors.  The  plot  is  far  inferior  to 
that  of  Don  Quixote  or  Tom  Jones.  The  characters,  emblazoned 
with  ridiculous  and  legendary  miracles,  the  offspring  of  credu- 
lity and  tradition,  bear  no  resemblance  to  probability ;  whilst 
the  language,  in  which  it  has  been  uniformly  couched,  is  un- 
polished and  repulsive. 

The  machinery  is  such  as  might  be  expected  in  a  romance 
of  the  dark  ages.  Simon  a  magician  is  introduced,  accompanied 
with  Helen  a  goddess,  who  had  been  taken  from  the  Tyrian 
brothels,  and  who  had  been  transformed  from  a  courtezan  into 
a  divinity.  This  man  had,  by  the  arts  of  necromancy,  obtained 
an  infamous  notoriety :  and  the  apostle,  it  would  appear,  was 
conducted  to  Rome  for  the  purpose  of  withstanding  the  en- 
chanter. The  new  pope  was  opposed  to  the  old  conjurer. 
Simon,  before  the  emperor  Nero  and  the  whole  city,  flew  into 
the  air.  But  Peter  kneeling  invoked  Jesus  ;  and  the  devil,  ki 
consequence,  who  had  aided  the  magician's  flight,  struck  with 
terror  at  the  sacred  name,  let  his  emissary  fall  and  break  his 
leg.1  One  stone,  in  the  Roman  capital,  retains,  to  the  present 
day,  the  print  of  Peter's  knee  where  he  prayed,  and  another, 
the  blood  of  Simon  where  he  fell ! 

The  hero  of  this  theological  romance  is  the  alleged  pope 
Peter.  His  supremacy  is  the  basis  of  the  whole  superstructure. 
This  ecclesiastical  sovereign  is  the  main-spring  which  puts  into 
motion  the  entire  machinery  ;  and  the  busy  actors  in  the  scene, 
accordingly,  have  endeavoured,  as  well  as  they  can,  to  support 
the  illusion  with  some  kind  of  evidence.  The  proof,  such  as  it 
is,  these  doctors  extort  from  the  phraseology  of  the  Messiah 
transmitted  by  the  sacred  historian  Matthew.2 

Our  Lord,  say  these  theologians,  built,  according  to  the  state- 
ment of  Matthew,  his  church  on  Peter,  whom,  by  this  charter, 
he  constituted  his  plenipotentiary  on  earth.  His  authority  de- 
volves in  succession  on  all  the  Roman  pontiffs,  and,  of  course, 
on  Liberius,  Zosimus,  Honorius,  Vigilius,  John,  Boniface,  and 
Alexander,  who  have  been  immortalized  by  heresy  or  villany. 

Matthew's  relation  is  conveyed  in  metaphorical  language,  laid 
has  given  rise  to  a  variety  of  interpretations.  Different  exposi- 
tors, even  among  Romish  critics,  explain  the  ROCK,  mentioned 
by  the  inspired  historian,  in  various  senses.  The  diversity  of 
these  opinions  is  freely  admitted  by  Launoy,  Du  Pin,  Calmet, 
and  Maldonat.  All  these  confess  the  variety  of  opinions  Cii  this 

1  Cyril,  88.     Catech.  VI.  »  Matth.  xvi.  18. 

11 


THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

passage  of  Revelation.1  Launoy,  followed  by  Du  Pin,  Calmet, 
and  Maimbourg,  distinguish  the  interpretations  on  this  part  of 
sacred  writ  into  four  classes,  according  as  they  make  the  foun- 
dation to  be  Peter  ;  the  Apostles  ;  Peter's  confession ;  or  Jesus 
himself.  Each  class  boasts  the  authority  of  popes,  saints,  and 
other  commentators. 

One  class  refers  the  rock  or  foundation,  mentioned  by  the  in- 
spired historian,  to  Peter.  These  support  their  opinion  by 
seventeen  fathers  or  theologians  who  entertained  this  interpre- 
tation ;  among  whom  were  Origen,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Hilary, 
Ambrosius,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Cyril,  Basil,  Epiphanius,  Gre- 
gory, and  Theophylact.  These,  in  modern  times,  were  followed 
by  Baronius,  Calmet,  Binius,  Maldonat,  and  Alexander.  Pope 
Leo  the  First  patronized  the  same  opinion.  Fontidinius  and 
Cardillus,  in  the  council  of  Trent,  advocated  this  explanation, 
without  any  contradiction  ;  and,  therefore,  it  appears,  expressed 
the  mind  of  that  assembly.2 

A  second  class  interpret  the  rock  or  foundation  to  signify  the 
APOSTLES.  This  exposition  has  been  embraced  by  theologians, 
saints,  and  councils.  It  was  adopted  by  Origen,  Theodoret, 
Tarasius,  Etherius,  Theophylact,  and  Pascasius.  The  same 
was  admitted  by  Du  Pin,  Calmet,  Alexander,  Cusan,  La,unoy, 
and  Maldonat,  as  well  as  by  the  saints  Cyprian,  Jerome, 
Hilary,  Cyril,  Ambrosius,  Chrysostom,  and  Augustine.3 

This  signification  of  the  word  was  also  sanctioned  by  the 
general  councils  of  Constance  and  Basil.  Gerson  delivered  a 
statement  to  this  purpose  in  the  general  council  of  Constance, 
in  a  speech  made  by  its  authority,  and  published  by  its  com- 
mand. The  same  was  taught  in  the  general  council  of  Basil, 
by  its  president  Julian,  in  his  celebrated  speech  delivered 
before  the  unerring  assembly  in  the  name  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  for  the  purpose  of  proselyting  the  Bohemians.  Pa- 
normitan,  in  this  synod,  followed  Julian  in  the  same  strain, 
stating  that  *  Jesus  gave  no  greater  power  to  Peter,  than  to  the 

1  Ab  interpretibus  et  sanctis  patribus  varie  exponitur.  Du  Pin,  304.     Les  diver- 
sitez  dans  les  peres  surles  sensde  ce  passage.     Calmet,  18.  364.     Maipibourg,  c.  v. 
De  Prim.  I,  5. 

2  Launoy,  ad  Voel.     Du  Pin,  Diss.  IV.     Maldon.  in  Matt.  xiv.     De  Launoi  17 
patres  seu  ecclesiasticos  auctores  laudat  huic  interpretation!  consentientes.     De 
Pn.^iatu,  10. 

Princeps  Apostolorum  Petre,  cujus  hnmeris  hanc  molem  ecclesiae  Christus  impo- 
suit,  ^ontid.  in  Labb.  20.  658. 

Cujus  fundamentum  Petrus  est.  Super  hunc  Petrum,  tanquam  supra  firmam  pe- 
tram,  Christus  aedificavit  ecclesiam  suam.  Cardill.  in  Labb.  20.  668,  671. 

3  Launoy.  2.    11.     Du  Pin,   Diss.  IV.     Maldon.  in  Matt.  xvi.     Apostoli  omnes, 
sequo  jure,  fuerint  ecclesiae  fundamenta".     Alex.  1.  283. 

Nihu  dictum  eet  ad  Petrum,  quod  etiam  aliis  dictum  non  sit.     Cusan,  II.  3. 
Tous  les  Apotres  en  sont  les  fondemeus.     Calmet,  18.  363.     Eph.  ii.  20.  Rev 
xxi    14. 


ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  OP  THE  POPE  TO  GOD.     163 

other  apostles.'  Neither  pope  nor  council,  on  any  of  these  oc- 
casions, remonstrated  or  shewed  any  opposition.  The  infallible 
fathers  acquiesced  in  silent  consent,  and,  in  this  way,  according 
to  Launoy,  Dens,  and  other  popish  doctors,  conveyed  their 
approbation.1 

A  third  class  interpret  the  rock  or  foundation  to  signify 
Peter's  faith  or  confession.  This  signification,  according  to 
Launoy,  Du  Pin,  Bellarmine,  Maimbourg,  Calmet,  and  Maldo- 
nat,  has  been  maintained  by  theologians,  saints,  popes,  and  coun- 
cils. Launoy  and  Du  Pin  reckon  forty-four  fathers  and  popish 
authors  who  held  this  opinion  :  and  the  roll  might  be  enlarged 
to  any  extent.  Amongst  these  were  Eusebius,  Beda,  Theodoret, 
Damascen,  Theophylact,  Odo,  Ragusa,  Alphonsus,  Pole,  Jonas, 
Eckius,  and  Erasmus.  A  long  train  of  saints  might  be  added, 
such  as  Hilary,  Ambrosius,  Gregory,  Chrysostom,  Cyril, 
Augustine,  and  Aquinas.  The  popes  are  Leo,  Felix,  Hormisdas, 
Gregory,  Nicholas,  John,  Stephen,  Innocent,  Urban,  Alexan- 
der, and  the  two  Hadrians.  These  facts  have  been  admitted 
even  by  Bellarmine  and  Maimbourg,  as  well  as  by  Calmet  and 
Maldonat.  Anno  825,  Jonas,  bishop  of  Orleans,  ascribed  this 
explanation  to  nearly  all  ecclesiastical  writers  :  and  none,  said 
the  celebrated  Eckius  so  late  as  1525,  deny  this  interpretation. 
Erasmus  not  only  accounted  Peter's  faith  or  profession  the 
foundation,  '  but  wondered  that  any  person  would  wrest  the 
passage  to  signify  the  Roman  pontiff.'2 

I  In  apostolorum  et  propketarum  doctrinis  fundata  est.     Gerson  in  Labb.   16. 
1315. 

In  Apocalypsi  dicitur,  murum  civitatis  descendentis  de  Coelo,  qua9  est  ecclesia, 
habere  fundamenta  duodecem  apostolorum  et  Agni.  Orat.  Praesed.  in  Labb.  17.  696. 

Nee  in  hoc,  majorem  potestatem  dedit  Petro  quam  caeteris  apostolis  simul. 
Panorm.  in  Cassant,  4.  1405. 

Cum  a  synodo  admittatur,  pro  synodi  doctrina  haberi  merito  potest  et  debet. 
Launoy.  2.  30. 

Sufficit  consensus  tacitus.     Facere,  in  hoc  casu,  est  consentire.     Dens,  2.  129. 

3  Launoy,  2.  18.  Du  Pin,  305.  Calmet  et  Maldon.  in  Matt.  xvi.  18.  Maim- 
bourg, c.  6. 

Idem  alterius  istius  interpretationis  patronos  44  patres  aut  scriptores  ecclesiasticos 
laudat.  Du  Pin,  2. 

Bellarminus,  ut  expositionem  tertiam,  hanc  veterum  patrum  testimoniis  posse, 
fateatur.  Launoy,  2,  51. 

II  y  en  a  d'autres,  qui  les  ont  entendues  de  cette  celebre  confession.     Maim- 
bourg, c.  6. 

Hanc  confessionem,  portae  inferni  non  tenebunt.  Leo  I.  Serin.  II.  Super  ista 
confessione  aedificabo  ecclesiam  meam.  Felix.  III.  Ep.  adZenon.  Labb.  5.  166. 

Apostoli  fidem  secuti  sunt.  Horm.  in  Comm.  In  petra  ecclesiae,  hoc  est,  in 
cou&ssione  Beati  Petri.  Greg.  I.  in  Labb.  6.  872. 

Super  solidam  fidem  apostolorum  principis.  Nich.  I.  ad  Mich,  super  solidam 
confessionis  petram,  suam  Dominus  fabricavit  ecclesiam.  John  viii.  ad  Petrum. 

Ecclesia  fundata  super  firmam  petram  apostoli,  videlicet  Petri  confessionem. 
Steph.  vi.  Ep.  2.  Super  hauc  petram  aedificabo  ecclesiam  :  petram  utique  firmi- 
tatem  fidei.  Inno.  II.  ad  Epis.  Supra  petram  fidei  fundavit.  Urban  III.  ad  Arch. 

Promeruit  confiteri  fidem,  super  quam  fundatur  ecclesia.  Hadrian  I.  ad  Coo. 

11* 


164  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY : 

Peter's  faith  or  confession  is  the  foundation,  also,  according 
to  the  general  councils  of  Nicea,  Constantinople,  Constance, 
Basil,  and  the  Lateran.  Pope  Hadrian,  in  a  letter  to  the 
empress  Irene,  read  and  received  with  acclamation  in  the 
second  general  councils  of  Nicea,  gave  this  interpretation.  The 
same  pontiff's  letter  to  Tarasius,  containing  a  similar  statement, 
was  read  in  this  synod,  and  admitted  with  equal  approbation. 
A  similar  reception  attended  the  letters  of  Germanus,  concur- 
ring with  Hadrian,  in  this  unerring  assembly.  All  the  bishops 
approved.  The  eighth  general  council  of  Constantinople  ac- 
cepted pope  Nicholas'  Epistle  to  Photius,  which  avowed  the 
same  opinion.  The  Constantian  theologians,  in  their  censure 
of  Wickliffism,  read  and  sanctioned  in  the  council  of  Constance, 
likewise  explained  the  expression  to  denote  'the  rock  of  faith.' 
The  council  of  Basil,  through  Julian  and  Ragusa,its  advocates 
against  the  Bohemian  heresy ,  was  equally  express  in  maintaining 
this  exposition,  which  had  been  avowed  at  Nicea,  Constantino- 
ple, and  Constance.  The  foundation  or  rock,  in  these  famed 
orations,  *  is  faith,  on  which  the  Creator  built  the  church,  and 
which  sustains  the  superstructure.'  The  council  of  the  Lateran 
concurred  with  that  of  Basil.  Peter,  said  Archbishop  Ste- 
phanus,  addressing  Pope  Leo  in  the  tenth  session  of  the  fifth 
general  council  of  the  Lateran,  '  confessed  the  Catholic  Apos- 
tolic faith,  ordained  by  the  eternal  father  and  the  eternal  son 
for  the  foundation  of  the  church.'  The  holy  pontiff  and  the 
holy  fathers,  in  silent  approbation,  admitted  the  unquestioned 
truth,  which,  sanctioned  by  the  five  general  councils  of  Nicea, 
Constantinople,  Constance,  Basil,  and  the  Lateran,  was,  there- 
fore, on  five  several  occasions,  emblazoned  with  the  insignia  of 
infallibility.1 

In  confessionis  petra.  Hadrian  IV.  ad  Fred.  Labb.  8.  747.  Cyril.  2.  593. 
Hilary,  77. 

Ad  annum  DCCCXXV.  Jonas  expositionem  tertiam  traditoribus  ecclesiae  poene 
omnibus  tribuit.  Launoy,  2.  51. 

Ad  annum  MDXXV.     Eckius  earn  a  nemine  negari  pugnat.     Launoy,  2,  51. 

Miror  ease,  qui locum  hunc  detorqueant  ad  Romanum  Pontificem.  Enism.  6.  88,  92. 

1  Promeruit  confiteri  fidem,  supra  quam  fundatur  ecclesia.  Fides  nostra  eat 
petra  super  quam  Christus  ledificavit  suam  ecclesiam.  Germ,  ad  Thorn.  Labb.  8. 
747,  770,  951,  1193,  1303.  Du  Pin,  2,  34,  35. 

Christus  supra  soliditatem  fidei  suam  sanctam  dignatus  est  stabilire  ecclesiam. 
Nich.  Photio.  Labb.  10.  539. 

Illam  ipse  solus  Christus  fundavit,  et  super  petram  fidei  mox  nascentis  erexit. 
Theol.  Constan.  in  Labb.  16,  868,  870.  Canisius,  4.  765. 

Fides  est  fundamentum  in  domo  rnoa.  Hoc  iiutom  fidei  fundamentum  firmiter 
eustentet  aedificium.  Super  bane  petram,  videlicet  fidei,  atdificabo  ecclesiam 
meam.  Labb.  17,  686,  692,  693.  Crabb.  3.  294. 

Christus  rogavit  pro  fide,  quam  ipse  confessus  fuerat,  et  supra  quam  ipse  Christua 
fundavit  suam  ecclesiam.  Rag.  in  Labb.  17.  896. 

Fidem  Catholicam  et  apostolicam  ab  oeterno  Patre  pro  CBterno  Filio  ordicitam&d 
fundamentum  ecclesiae,  confessus  est.  Oral.  Steph.  in  Labb.  19.  921. 


ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  OF  THE  POPE  TO  GOD.     165 

A  fourth  class  make  Christ  himself  the  rock  or  foundation. 
This  explanation  also  has  been  patronized  by  theologians, 
saints,  popes,  and  councils.  Launoy  enumerates  sixteen  fathers 
or  popish  doctors  of  this  descripton  ;  and  the  list  might  be 
vastly  increased.  Among  the  fathers  and  doctors  are  Origen, 
Eusebius,  Theodoret,  Beda,  Paulinus,  Dungal,  Etherius,  Raban, 
Tarasius,  Anselm,  Theophylact,  Lombard,  Ragusa,  Lyra,  Pole, 
and  Vatablus.  The  saints  are  Cyprian,  Cyril,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  and  Aquinas,  as  well  as  many  more  that  might  be 
mentioned.  The  popes  are  Celestine,  Innocent,  Pius,  Alexan- 
der, Hadrian,  Nicholas,  and  Leo :  and  to  these  might  be  added 
many  other  Roman  pontiffs.1 

The  rock  or  foundation,  say  also  the  general  councils  of 
Nicea,  Constantinople,  Basil,  and  Trent,  was  the  Lord.  This 
was  expressed  in  Pope  Hadrian's  letter  to  Tarasius,  which 
was  read  and  received  in  the  second  Nicean  council :  and 
in  the  speech  of  Epiphanius  to  the  same  assembly.  The 
same  was  declared  in  a  letter  of  Pope  Nicholas  to  Michael, 
which  was  read  without  any  declamation  in  the  eighth  general 
council  that  met  at  Constantinople.  The  Basilian  council  con- 
curred with  those  of  Nicea  and  Constantinople.  This  assembly, 
through  Julian  and  Ragusa,  its  advocates  for  Catholicism 
against  the  Bohemian  heresy,  also  sanctioned  this  interpreta- 
tion. The  general  council  of  Trent  followed  in  the  same  path. 
Fragus  in  this  synod,  declared  without  any  disclamation,  that 
*  the  church  was  builded  on  the  living  stone,  the  firm  and  divine 
rock.'2  This  interpretation,  therefore,  giving  the  honour  to  the 
Messiah,  was,  in  four-  general  councils,  marked  with  the  seal 
of  synodal  infallibility. 

Augustine's  language  on  this  question  is,  in  several  places, 
very  strong  and  emphatical.  He  makes  a  distinction  between 

1  Laun.  ad  veoll.     Du  Pin,  305.     Theophylact,  2.   186.     Lyra,  5.  52.     Canisius, 
2.  298. 

De  Launoi  sexdecim  numerat  patres  seu  ecclesiasticos  auctores  sic  hunc  textum 
exponentes.  Ue  Prim  2. 

Christus  qui  est  petra.  Cyprian.  Ep.  63.  Avto$  coy  d dsps Juoj .  Cyril,  2.  612. 
Fundamentum  unus  est  Domines.  Jerom.  c.  7.  Petra  Christus  est  Jerom.  3.  1430. 
Aug.  Ret.  I.  21.  Christus  est  ecclesiae  fund  amentum.  Aquin.  2.  6.  Ant.  6. 

De  seipsa  veritate  dicente,  super  hanc  petram.  Celest.  III.  ad  Lin.  Labb.  13.  702. 
Petra  erat  Christus.  Inn.  Serai.  II.  Super  firmam  petram,  quae  erat  Christus. 
Pius.  II.  de  Gest.  Launoy,  2.  45  Labb.  8.  770,  et  10.  529.  De  Prim.  14.  In 
fundatneuto  quod  est  Christus.  Leo  9.  ad  Mich.  Labb.  11.  1323. 

2  Christus  fundamentum  est.     Had.  I.  ad  Taras.     Labb.  8.  770.  1268.    A  firmi- 
tatepetrae,  quae  Christus  est.  Nicolai  Epistola  ad  Michaelem  Imp.  in  Labb.  10.  529. 

Christus  Jesus  hujus  ledificii  basis  et  fundamentum  fieri  dignatus  est.  Fundata 
est  h;Kc  sacrosancta  mea  domus  super  petram  Christ!  vivam.  Julian  in  Lnbb.  17. 
692.  693.  Crabb.  3.  293,  294.  Petra  significabat  Christum.  Joannes  de  Ragus.  in 
Labb.  17.  821.  Canisius,  4.  469. 

Super  vivum  saxum  firmamque  et  Divinam  jwtratn  constructs    Orat.  Frag  Labb. 


166  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

the  word,  which  in  the  English  version,  is  translated  Peter,  and 
that  which  is  rendered  Rock.  The  two  terms,  indeed,  both 
in  the  original  and  in  the  vulgate,  in  the  Greek  and  in  the 
Latin,  are  different  in  form  and  signification.  Augustine,  ac- 
cordingly, as  Erasmus  has  remarked,  applies  the  word  rock, 
not  to  Peter,  but  to  Christ.  Jesus,  observes  the  saint,  '  said 
not,  thou  art  the  rock,  but  thou  art  Peter.  The  rock  was  Christ, 
whom  Peter  confessed.'1  Maldonat  characterizes  this  distinc- 
tion by  the  epithet,  silly  and  ridiculous.  But  the  distinction, 
whether  silly  or  solid,  is  the  work,  not  of  a  Protestant  commen- 
tator, but  of  a  Roman  saint. 

The  interpretation  of  the  third  class  was  adopted  by  Luther. 
The  Saxon  reformer,  therefore,  notwithstanding  his  heresy, 
was  supported  in  his  opinion  by  saints,  popes,  and  general 
councils.  Calvin  embraced  the  interpretation  of  the  fourth 
class.  His  opinion,  therefore,  like  Luther's,  was  patronized  by 
the  highest  authority  in  the  Romish  communion.  Luther  and 
Calvin  therefore,  if  they  were  mistaken,  erred,  even  in  popish 
estimation,  in  good  company ;  and  their  explanations  flow  in 
the  same  channel  with  the  stream  of  antiquity. 

These  four  expositions,  seemingly  at  variance,  may  all,  say 
Launoy  and  Du  Pin,  be  shown  to  agree.  The  two  former  are 
the  same  in  sense,  and  so  are  the  two  latter.  The  meaning  of 
both  the  foregoing,  signifying  the  apostles,  is,  in  no  respect  in- 
consistent with  the  acceptation  of  both  the  ensuing,  when  as- 
sumed to  denote  the  Lord.  Account  the  apostles  the  sub- 
ordinate, and  the  Lord  the  supreme  foundation,  and  the  whole 
train  of  doctors,  saints,  pontiffs,  and  councils,  however  they 
may  appear  to  differ,  will,  in  reality,  immediately  be  reconciled. 

The  first  and  second  interpretations,  say  Launoy  and  Du  Pin, 
are  the  same  in  sense.  The  two,  differing  in  appearance  rather 
than  in  reality,  may  easily  be  reconciled.  The  commentators, 
who  represent  Simon  as  the  foundation,  do  not  exclude;  his 
apostolic  companions.  None  of  the  ancients  characterized  Peter 
as  the  only  foundation.  Those  who  ascribe  to  him  this  honour, 
never  in  a  single  instance,  attribute  it  exclusive  to  him  alone, 
but  refer  it,  in  common,  to  the  whole  apostolic  college.  Both 
explanations,  accordingly,  were  patronized  by  Origen,  Cyprian, 
Jerome,  and  Augustine.  Cyprian,  at  an  early  period,  declared 
that  '  our  Lord  conferred  equal  power  on  all  the  apostles,  who, 
in  this  respect,  were  certainly  the  same  as  Peter ;'  and  the 

1  Non  enim  dictum  est  illi,  tu  es  petra,  sed  tu  es  Petrus.  Petra  autem  erat 
Christus  quern  confessus  Simon.  Aug.  Ret.  I.  21.  Non  supra  petram  quod  tu  es, 
sed  supra  petram  quam  confessus  es.  August.  Serm.  270. 

Augustinus  base  verba  super  hanc  petram  ipsi  accommodat  Christo,  non  Petro 
Erasm.  fi.  88. 


ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  OF  THE  POPE  TO  GOD.     167 

saint  has  been  followed  in  more  modern  times  by  Panormitan, 
Alexander,  Launoy,  Du  Pin,  Maldonat,  Cusan,  and  Calmet. 
The  cardinals  also,  who  convoked  the  council  of  Pisa,  and  a 
long  train  of  other  popish  doctors,  have  taken  the  same  view  of 
the  subject.1 

This  seems  to  be  the  scriptural  statement.  The  church,  says 
Paul,  is  *  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets.' 
The  twelve  foundations  of  the  new  Jerusalem,  accordingly  had, 
says  John,  '  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles.'  This,  in  the 
metaphorical  and  prophetic  language  of  Revelation,  is  an 
emblem  of  the  extraordinary  commission  which  these  mission- 
aries executed  as  the  primary  heralds  of  the  gospel.  All  the 
sacred  college,  therefore,  are  represented  as  the  foundation  of 
the  new  Jerusalem,  \vhich,  in  their  master's  name,  and  as  his 
spiritual  kingdom,  was,  by  their  united  exertions,  to  be  reared. 
The  apostles,  says  Du  Pin,  were  called  the  foundation,  on  ac- 
count of  their  promulgation  of  the  gospel  and  their  government 
of  the  church. 

The  third  and  fourth  interpretations,  as  well  as  the  first  and 
second,  are  the  same  in  sense.  The  two,  though  they  differ  in 
expression,  agree,  like  the  other  two,  in  signification.  The 
Lord  and  Peter's  faith  or  confession  are  identical :  for  the  ob- 
ject of  Peter's  faith  was  the  Lord,  whom  the  apostle  confessed. 
Such  is  the  deduction  of  reason,  and  such  the  conclusion  of 
candid  professors  of  Popery,  of  Launoy,  Du  Pin,  and  many 
others  of  the  same  description.2  Many  saints,  popes,  and  coun- 
cils, as  the  preceding  statements  show,  acknowledged  both  foun 
dations,  plainly  manifesting  their  conviction  of  their  identity. 

These  observations,  in  clear  terms,  show  the  identity  of  the 
two  former,  as  well  as  of  the  two  latter  interpretations.  But 
the  identical  meaning  of  both  the  preceding,  signifying  the 
apostles,  and  of  both  the  following,  denoting  the  Lord,  are  in 
no  respect  inconsistent  or  contradictory.  The  one  is  ministerial 
and  subordinate,  and  the  other  sovereign  and  supreme.  This 
is  a  distinction,  not  merely  of  protestant  origin,  but  warranted 
>y  popish  authority.  Dens,  the  treasury  of  Romanism,  the 
darling  of  the  popish  prelacy  in  Ireland,  adopts,  on  this  question, 
a  similar  distinction.  The  celebrated  Gerson,  in  a  speech 

1  Expositiones  primae  et  secundae  Patris  sibi  ipsis  conciliantur  facile.     Launoy, 
2.  46. 

Apostolis  omnibus  parem  potestatem  tribuat.     Cyprian,  107. 
Apostoli  Dmnes,  sequo  jure,  fuerunt  ecclesiae  fundam^nta.     Alex.  1.  283. 
H;cc  non  secus  apostolis  caeteris  ac  Petro  data  sunt.    Du  Pin,  308.    Maldon.  'n 
Matt.  xvi.  18. 

Tons  les  Apotres  en  sont  les  fondemens.     Calmet.  18.  363.     Labb.  15.  1159 

2  Tertia  et  quarta  expositio  reipsa  conveniunt.     Launoy,  2.  53. 

Ab  ista  expositions,  non  multum  abluunt,  ii  qui  Petrum  interpretantur  Christum, 
quern  Petrus  erat  confessus.     Du  Pin,  305.     De  Prim.  2. 


168  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

delivered  in  the  council  of  Constance,  and  armed  with  all  its 
unerring  authority,  discriminated,  on  this  topic,  in  the  same 
manner.  Many  doctors,  saints,  popes,  and  councils,  as  appears 
from  the  preceding  statements,  have  admitted  both  foundations, 
but  certainly,  in  accordance  with  the  foregoing  discrimination,  in 
a  different  sense,  accounting  the  one  subordinate,  and  the  other 
supreme.  Pope  Leo  the  Ninth  represents  the  church  as  built 
on  the  rock,  which  is  Emmanuel,  as  well  as  on  Peter  or  Cephas. 
Fossus,  Archbishop  of  Reginum,  in  the  council  of  Trent,  and 
countenanced  with  at  least  its  tacit  consent,  referred  the  rock 
or  foundation  to  Christ,  to  faith,  and  to  Peter,  The  pontiff 
and  the  prelate,  on  this  occasion,  must  have  intended  to  distin- 
guish between  the  apostolic  and  mediatorial  foundations.  All 
these  authors,  therefore,  as  Launoy  remarks,  may,  in  this  man- 
ner, be  reconciled  with  themselves,  as  weU  as  with  reason  and 
revelation.1 

The  donation  of  the  KEYS,  mentioned  by  Matthew,  and  addu- 
ced in  proof  of  the  supremacy  by  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius, 
and  their  party,  affords  another  topic  of  diversified  opinion 
among  the  friends  of  Romanism.  This  argument,  if  it  deserve 
the  name,  forms  one  of  the  most  pitiful  sophisms  that  ever  dis- 
graced the  pages  of  controversy.  The  keys,  conveying  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing,  of  remitting  and  retaining  sin, 
were,  according  to  the  ancients  and  many  moderns,  given  to 
all  the  apostles  and  to  all  Christians  who  belong  to  the  ecclesi- 
astical community.  This  has  been  shown,  beyond  all  question, 
by  the  warmest  friends  of  the  Papacy,  such  as  Du  Pin,  Calmet, 
Maldonat,  and  Alexander.  The  proof  of  the  donation  of  the 
keys  to  the  whole  apostolic  college  and  to  the  whole  Christian 
commonwealth,  has  been  collected  by  Du  Pin  and  Maldonat. 
The  Sorbonist  and  the  Jesuit  declare  the  unanimity  of  the 
ancients  on  this  opinion.2  Du  Pin,  for  the  exposition,  instances 
the  saints  Cyprian,  Jerome,  Ambrosius,  Augustin,  Leo,  Ful- 
gentius,  and  the  fathers  Tertullian,  Optatus,  Gaudentius, 
Theophylact,  Eucharius,  Beda,  Raban,  Hincmar,  and  Odo. 

1  Solus  Christus  est  quidem  ftmdamentum  essentials  et  primarium.  Petrus  est 
fundamentum  secundarium  in  Christo  fundatum.  Dens,  2.  149. 

Ad  unum  caput  primarium  Christum,  et  vicarium  summum  Pontificem.  Gerson 
in  Labb.  16.  1315. 

Ecclesia  super  petram,  id  est  Christum,  et  super  Petrum  vel  Cepham  eedificato. 
Le.->  ad  Mich.  Labb.  11.  1323. 

Ad  Christum  et  ad  fidem,  quam  Petrus  confessus  est,  refertur,  ut  nisi  ad  Petrum 
ipsum  referri  etiam  intelligas,  diminut^  credes  et  prope  nihil.  Foss.  in  Labb.  20. 
52.9 

Si  auctores  illi  omnes  inter  se  componantur,  ut  antea,  componi  facile  possunt. 
Launoy,  2.  51. 

9  Antiqui,  unanimi  consensu,  tradunt,  clavesistas,  in  persona  Petri,  toti  ecclesia* 
dntas.  Du  Pin,  308.  Omnes  veteres  auctores  decent,  dicentes,  claves  omnibus 
datus  fuisee.  Maldonat,  340. 


ALLEGED  SUPERIORITY  OF  THE  POPE  TO  GOD     169 

Maldonat  specifies,  for  the  same  interpretation,  the  names  of 
Chrysostom,  Ambrosius,  Origen,  and  Theophylact.  Calinet, 
for  this  opinion,  enumerates  Cyprian,  Augustin,  Origen,  and 
Theophylact ;  while  Alexander  mentions  Origen,  Hilary,  Am- 
brosius, and  Augustin.1  The  system,  therefore,  which  is  now 
deprecated  by  the  Italian  school  of  Romanism,  was  patronized 
by  the  whole  sainthood,  from  Cyprian  to  Fulgentius  and 
Chrysostom. 

The  ancients,  indeed,  with  the  utmost  harmony  and  without 
one  murmur  of  dissent,  ascribe  the  reception  of  the  keys  to  the 
universal  church.  A  single  sentence  to  the  contrary  could  not 
be  extorted  from  all  the  ponderous  volumes  and  all  the  diversi- 
fied monuments  of  Christian  antiquity.  Many  learned  moderns 
in  the  Romish  communion  have  entertained  the  same  senti- 
ments, such  as  Lyra,  Du  Pin,  Calmet,  Maldonat,  Pithou,  Alex- 
ander, Moreri,  Faber,  Pole,  and  even  the  Rhemists.2  The 
same  opinion  has  been  advocated  by  Gerson,  Cusan,  and 
Launoy.  The  gift  of  the  keys,  therefore,  being  common,  could 
confer  on  an  individual  no  peculiar  jurisdiction  or  authority. 

Bellarmine  and  his  numerous  partizans  have  endeavoured  to 
torture  a  third  argument  from  the  admonition.  "  Feed  my 
sheep."  This,  say  these  theologians,  is  an  evidence  of  Simon's 
universal  pastorship.  But  this  reason,  if  possible,  surpasses 
the  former,  in  superlative  silliness  and  impertinence.  Similar 
admonitions,  in  the  book  of  inspiration,  are  addressed  to  all  the 
pastors,  ordinary  and  extraordinary,  of  the  Christian  common- 
wealth. Jesus,  Paul,  and  Peter  concur  in  enjoining  this  duty.3 
Simon  indeed  was  a  distinguished  herald  of  the  gospel ;  and 

1  Caeteri  apostoli,  quod  fait  Petrus,  pari  consortio  praediti  honoris  et  potestatis. 
Tertul.  in  Scorp.  Cuncti  claves  Regni  Coelorum  accipiant.  Jerom.  adv.  Jov. — Quod 
Petro  dicitur,  caeteris  Apostolis  dicitur,  tibi  dabo  claves.  Ambros.  in  Ps.  xviii. — 
Ecclesiee  claves  regni  coelorum  datae  sunt.  August,  de  Agon.  c.  xxx. — Cunctis 
ecclesise  rectoribus  forma  praeponitur.  Leo,  Serm.  III.  Deus,  in  persona  beati 
Petri,  ecclesiae  ligandi  ac  solvendi  tribuit  potestatem.  Fulgentius  de  Fide.  c.  III. 
Apostoli  coelorum  claves  sortiti  sunt.  Hilary,  688. 

3  Potestas  data  Petro,  intelligitur  dari  aliis.  Lyra,  5.  52.  Falluntur,  qui  soli 
Petro  datas  claves  ess  autumant.  Du  Pin,  308. — On  ne  peut  pas  dire,  que  Saint 
Pierre  ait  recu  les  clefs  du  ciel  a  1'exclusion  des  autres  Apostres.  Calmet,  18,  368. 
Non  nego  caeteros  Apostolos  suasetiam  claves  habuisse.  Maldonat,  340.  Petrus, 
quando  claves  accepit,  ecclesiam  sanctam  significavit.  Pithou,  Caus.  24.  Qu.  I. 
Caeteris  Apostolis  datae  sunt  claves.  Alexander,  1.  331. 

Les  passages,  si  1'on  consulte  1'explication  qu'en  donnent  les  peres,  s'  addressent 
a  tous  les  apotres  et  a  toute  1'  eglise.  Moreri,  7.  40. 

Auctoritas  haec  non  est  concessa  personae  soli  Petri,  sed  ipsi  ecclesiae.  Faber 
2.  385. 

Haec,  quae  Petro  dicuntur,  ad  caeteros  pastores  onmes  pertineant.  Pol  us,  in 
Labb.  23,  961. 

On  a  toujours  fait  profession  en  France  de  croire  que  les  clefs  ont  etc  donnees  a 
P  eglise.  Apol.  2.  82. 

3  Matt.  ii.  8,  19.  Murk  xvi.  15.  Luke  xxiv.  47.  John  xxi.  16.  Acts  xx.  28 
I.  Peter  v.  2.  Du  Pin.  Diss.  IV 


170  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

successful,  to  an  extraordinary  extent,  in  proclaiming  salvation 
to  the  Jews.  Paul,  however,  was  inferior  to  none  in  the  evan- 
gelical transcendency  of  exertion  and  success.  This  statement 
is  corroborated  by  the  authority  of  Ambrosius,  Chrysostom, 
Augustin,  and  Basil,  who  are  quoted  for  this  purpose  by  Du  Pin.1 

The  evangelists,  therefore,  make  no  mention  of  the  supre- 
macy, and  the  other  sacred  penmen  are  guilty  of  the  same  omis- 
sion. Nothing  of  the  kind  is  to  be  found  in  the  works  of  Luke, 
Paul,  James,  Peter,  Jude,  or  John.  Luke  mentions  the  elec- 
tion of  Matthias  and  the  deacons,  the  mission  to  Samaria,  and 
the  council  of  Jerusalem.2  Pope  Peter,  however,  in  none  of 
these,  claimed  or  exercised  any  superiority.  The  apostolic 
pontiff,  on  no  occasion,  issued  a  single  bull  or  launched  a  soli- 
tary anathema. 

Paul,  in  his  fourteen  epistolary  productions,  supplies  no  proof 
of  the  supremacy  ;  but  the  contrary.  He  declares,  in  unquali- 
fied language,  his  own  equality,  and  disclaims  the  imputation  of 
inferiority.  He  reproved  Cephas  in  strong  terms,  for  tempo- 
rizing dissimulation  in  his  treatment  of  the  Christian  converts 
from  Judaism  and  Gentilism.  He  addressed  a  long  letter  to  the 
Roman  Christians.  He  transmitted  salutations  from  many  infe- 
rior names,  but  neglected  the  Roman  pontiff' who  reigned  in  the 
Roman  capitol.  The  Christian  missionary,  with  all  his  erudi- 
tion, seems  not  to  have  known  his  holiness,  who,  it  would  ap- 
pear, had  no  name  in  the  apostolic  vocabulary.  He  mentions 
the  civil  governor ;  but  neglects  the  sacerdotal  viceroy.  He  is 
mindful  of  the  emperor  ;  but  unmindful  of  the  pope.3  This  was 
very  uncourteous.  The  pupil  of  Gamaliel  might  have  imbibed 
some  Rabbinical  learning,  and  the  citizen  of  Tarsus  might  have 
acquired  some  Grecian  literature.  But  he  must  have  been 
wofully  defective  in  politeness.  Paul,  however  did  not,  after 
all,  speak  evil  of  this  dignity.  His  apostleship  only  forgot  to 
say  any  thing  of  his  spiritual  majesty,  who  then  wielded  through 
Christendom,  all  the  vicegerency  of  ecclesiastical  omnipotence. 

Pope  Peter  has  obliged  the  world  with  two  ecclesiastical  pub- 
lications. The  sovereign  pontiff,  in  these  official  annunciations, 
might  have  been  expected  to  mention  his  vice-regal  authority, 
if  it  were  only  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  his  commands.  But 
the  viceroy  of  heaven  preserves,  on  this  topic,  a  vexatious  and 
provoking  silence.  He  discovers  not  one  solitary  or  cheering 

1  Suscepit  Petrus,  sed  et  nobiscum  eas  suscepit.     Amb.  de  Dign.  II.  2. 
EipjfT'ot  rtpoj  exaatov  qpup.     Chrysostom,  7.  749. 

Non  ipso  Petro,  sed  in  corpore  suo,  ait,  pasce  oves  meas.    Augus.  de  Agon.  c.  xxx, 
Hdoi  tots  ?<J>f|;»7J  ftoiptot,  xcu  StSaffxcaotj,  t^v  idrjv  Ttapf^oyfoffilovcftav.     Basil  2- 
579. 

3  Acts  i.  26. :  vi.  1—6. :  xv.  1 — 22. 

3  2  Corin.  xi.  5.    Gal.  ii.  11.    2  Corin.  xii.  11. 


SILENCE  OF  TRADITION  CONCERNING  THE  .»Ak»A'L  SUPREMACY.  171 

hint  of  any  such  dignity.  The  Galilean  fisherman  exercises  no 
prerogative  of  the  modern  papacy  in  commanding  the  Apostles, 
issuing  bulls,  enacting  laws,  judging  controversy,  deciding  ap- 
peals, summoning  councils,  transferring  kingdoms,  wielding  the 
civil  and  spiritual  swords,  and  dissolving  the  oath  of  fealty 
to  princes. 

James,  Jude,  and  John  say  nothing  that  can  be  pressed  into 
the  service  of  the  pontifical  supremacy.  The  silence  of  these, 
as  well  as  the  other  inspired  penmen,  on  an  event,  which,  if  true, 
is  of  the  last  importance,  must  seal  its  condemnation.  The 
papacy,  if  a  divine  institution,  would,  from  its  magnitude,  be 
written  with  sunbeams  in  Divine  Revelation.  This,  if  any  thing, 
required  perspicuity  and  detail.  But  an  insinuation  of  the  kind 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  whole  volume  of  inspiration.  The 
pope  and  the  popedom,  both  in  name  and  reality,  in  sign  and 
signification,  in  -expression  and  implication,  are  utterly  excluded 
from  all  the  Book  of  God,  all  the  pandects  of  Divine  legislation, 
and  ah1  the  monuments  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  The  Deity 
in  His  word,  utterly  neglects  the  promulgation  of  the  papal 
polity.  The  Heavenly  Majesty,  reversing  the  example  of  earthly 
kings,  who  notify  their  viceroys  by  special  commissions,  deigns 
not,  in  his  gospel,  to  mention  his  vicar-general.  The  inspired 
penmen  detail  the  propagation  and  settlement  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical kingdom,  the  qualifications  and  mission  of  its  governors, 
and  the  prevention  and  remedy  of  error  and  schism.  But  the 
ecclesiastical  sovereign  is  consigned  to  silence  and  oblivion. 
The  vast,  misshapen,  unwielded,  overgrown,  menacing  mp.ss  of 
superstition  and  despotism  is  passed,  without  mention,  in  the 
scriptural  records,  except  in  the  tremendous  denunciations  of 
scriptural  prophecy  foretelling  the  future  rise  and  final  destruc 
tion  of  "  the  man  of  sin,  whom  the  Lord  shall  consume  with 
the  spirit  of  his  mouth,  and  shall  destroy  with  the  brightness  of 
his  coming." 

Innocent  the  Third  indeed  discovered  the  popedom  in  the 
Book  of  Genesis.  According  to  his  infallibility,  the  firmament 
mentioned  by  the  Jewish  legislator  signifies  the  church.  The 
greater  light,  according  to  the  same  unerring  commentator,  de- 
notes the  pontifical  authority ;  and  the  less,  represents  the  royal 
power.1  The  prince  therefore  derives  and  exercises  this  juris- 
diction from  the  pontiff,  as  the  moon  borrows  and  reflects  the 
light  of  the  sun.  This,  no  doubt,  was  very  sensible  in  his  in- 
fallibility, and  makes  the  thing  very  clear.  The  Roman 
hierarchy  indeed  may  be  as  plainly  found  in  Genesis  as  in  any 

1  Fecit  Deus  duo  magna  luminaria,  id  est,  duas  instituit  dignitates,   qu.ee  sunt 
potitificalis  auctoritas  et  regalis  potestas.     Gibert,  1.  11.     ~        ^  ~ 
Faifcet,  193. 


172  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

other  book  of  the  Bible.  The  same  kind  of  exposition  would 
enable  an  ingenious  mind  to  find  any  thing  in  any  book.  The 
popedom,  by  the  same  kind  of  alchymy,  might  be  found  in 
Ovid,  or  a  system  of  divinity  in  Homer  or  Virgil.  But  the 
system,  which  requires  the  extorted  evidence  obtained  by 
straining,  wresting,  torturing,  and  mangling  scriptural  language 
carries  in  itself  its  own  condemnation. 

Tradition,  on  Pope  Peter's  supremacy,  is  silent  as  scripture. 
The  ancients,  on  this  subject,  vary  from  the  modern  friends  of 
Romanism.  Du  Pin,  Bellarmine,  and  Alexander  among  many 
others,  have,  with  extensive  erudition  and  research,  investigated 
this  controversy ;  and  the  Sorbonist,  the  Jesuit,  and  the 
Dominican,  notwithstanding  all  their  learning  and  labour,  have 
failed  in  attempting  to  find  the  supremacy  of  his  apostolic  holi- 
ness in  the  monuments  of  traditional  antiquity.1  Du  Pin,  with 
his  usual  candour,  admits  the  silence  of  the  most  ancient 
fathers,  such  as  Justin,  Irenaeus,  and  Clemens  of  Alexandria.2 
These,  in  no  instance,  condescend  to  mention  the  pontifical 
dignity  of  the  sacerdotal  viceroy,  who  with  spiritual  sovereignty, 
first  governed  Christendom.  The  Sorbonist  begins  his  quota- 
tions in  proof  of  Peter's  prerogative  with  Origen,  who  flourished 
about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  But  the  Greek  original, 
he  grants,  is  lost,  and  the  Latin  translation  of  Ruffin us  abounds 
with  interpolations.  He  mentions  Cyprian  and  Eusebius,  whose 
testimony  he  rejects  for  interpolation  or  inadequacy.  His  first 
authority,  on  which  he  rests  any  dependence,  is  Optatus,  who 
wrote  about  the  year  370.  Bellarmine's  first  authority,  if 
Origen,  Cyprian,  and  Eusebius,  whom  Du  Pin  rejects,  be 
omitted,  is  Basil  the  cotemporary  of  Optatus.  Alexander  begins 
with  Cyril,  who  was  later  than  either  Optatus  or  Basil.  A  period 
of  370  years  had  run  its  ample  round,  and  its  annals,  scrutinized 
by-  three  learned  doctors,  could  not  supply  a  single  document, 
witnessing  the  vicegerency  of  his  apostolic  holiness.  This,  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind,  must  be  a  clear  evidence  of  its  non- 
existence.  No  person,  free  from  prepossession,  can  believe  that 
an  ecclesiastical  monarchy  existed  so  many  years  in  Christen- 
dom, and,  at  the  same  time,  remained  unnoticed  by  so  many 
ecclesiastical  authors,  and,  in  consequence,  unnotified  to  pos- 
terity by  any  hint  or  declaration. 

Admitting  the  authenticity  of  Origen' s  attestation,  240  years 
from  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era  remain,  notwith- 
standing, on  this  topic  an  historical  blank.  No  vestige  of  this 
spiritual  sovereignty  can  be  discovered  in  Clemens  Romanus, 

1  Du  Pin,  313.     Bell,  I.  25.     Alexander,  1.  283. 

8  De  Petri  primatu,  nihil  apud  Justinum,  Irenaeum,  Clementem,  Alexandrinum, 
et  alius  autiquissimos.     Du  Pin  313 


PAPAL    SUPREMACY    UNKNOWN    TO    ANTIQUITY.  173 

Hermas,  Barnabas,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin,  Irenaeus, 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Athenagoras,  Tatian,  Theophilus,  or 
Tertullian.  The  most  extraordinary  monarchy,  that  ever 
astonished  the  world,  continued,  according  to  the  popish  state- 
ment, during  a  long  series  of  time,  to  exist  in  the  view  and  to 
regulate  the  minds  of  its  devoted  subjects,  and  passed,  never- 
theless, without  leaving  a  single  monument  of  antiquity  to 
perpetuate  its  memory.  The  subjects  of  the  papacy  seem  to 
have  paid  little  attention  to  their  sovereign.  But  his  apostolic 
infallibility  should  not  have  endured  such  disrespectful  treat- 
ment. His  holiness  or  his  successors,  during  this  interval, 
should  have  roared  from  the  Vatican  and  aroused  Christendom 
from  its  lethargy.  The  viceroy  of  God  should  have  fulminated 
his  anathemas  as  in  modern  times,  and  taught  men  the  sin  and 
danger  of  neglecting  his  universal  sovereignty. 

Bellarmine's  system,  void  of  all  evidence  prior  to  Basil,  is  un- 
sustained  by  competent  authority  even  after  the  era  of  the 
Grecian  saint.  The  inadequacy  of  later  testimony  for  the  fish- 
erman's  supremacy  is  as  striking  as  its  former  utter  want  of  it. 
Bellarmine's  quotations  from  Basil  to  Bernard  evince  nothing. 
These  citations,  as  they  are  late,  are  also  useless.  The  ancients, 
indeed,  from  towards  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  embellished 
their  works  and  flattered  the  Apostle  with  many  sounding  names 
and  titles;  such  as  prince,  head,  foundation,  leader,  president, 
governor,  master,  guardian,  captain,  and,  to  crown  all,  the 
divine  Dionysius  called  Peter  l  the  vertical  summit  of  theolo- 
gians.'1 These,  BeUatmine  and  Alexander  applied  to  Cephas, 
and,  in  consequence,  infer  h;s  supremacy. 

The  conclusion,  however,  is  illogical.  The  argument  would 
prove  too  much,  and  therefore  proves  nothing.  The  fallacy 
consists  in  reckoning  peculiar  what  is  common.  Similar  or 
even  superior  eulogiums,  for  example,  have,  by  some  writers, 
been  bestowed  on  James,  John,  and  Paul.  The  Clementine 
recognitions  call, '  Ja.mes  the  Prince  of  Bishops,'  and  Hesychius 
styles  him  '  the  Head  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Chief  Captain  of 
the  New  Jerusalem.'  John,  according  to  Chrysostom,  was 
'  the  Pillar  of  all  the  Churches  in  the  world,  and  had  the  keys 
of  heaven.'2  Paul  is  represented  as  equal  to  Peter  by  Bernard, 
Ambrosius,  and  Leo.  Bernard  styles  *  Peter  and  Paul  princes 

1  Diviuus  Dionysius  verticalem  theologorum  summitatem  magnum  Petrum  no- 
minavit.  Barlaam,  374. 

Bell.  1.  25.  Dti  Pin,  314.  Alex.  1.  283.  Leo,  Serm.  3.  Jerom,  4.  101.  Ber- 
nard, 220.  Optntns,  II. 

2.Jacobum  episcoporum  principem  orabat.     Clem.  Recog.  1.  68.  Cotel.  1.  509. 

Tov  t»7$  vfaj  frpovffttXttu  ap^KTfparryo*,  fwa  artocrToXwv  *ov  f|ap^ov.  Photius* 
Codex,  275.  p.  1525. 

'()  crrvXos  rwv  xata  t^v  oLxovfiiv^v  txxtyaiuv  o  raj  xtetj  *2wv  * ov  ovpavov 
Chrysostom,  8.  2.  Houi.  I. 


174  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY* 

of  the  Apostles.'  According  to  Ambrosius.  '  Paul  was  not  in- 
ferior to  Peter.'  Paul  and  Peter,  says  Pope  Leo,  were  equal 
in  their  election,  labour,  and  end.1  Paul's  superiority  to  Peter 
is  maintained  by  Origen,  Chrysostom,  and  Gregory.  Origen 
terms  '  Paul  the  greatest  of  the  Apostles.'  According  to  Chry- 
sostom, '  Paul  had  no  equal.'  '  Paul,'  says  Gregory,  '  was  the 
head  of  the  nations,  and  obtained  the  principality  of  the  whole 
church.'2  These  are  higher  compliments  than  any  which  the 
fathers  have  given  to  Peter.  Sounding  titles,  therefore,  if  they 
j^oly  the  supremacy  of  Peter,  must,  in  stronger  language, 
imp!y  the  supremacy  of  James,  John,  and  Paul.  These  turgid 
expressions  characterized  the  bloated  style  of  later  authors. 
The  earlier  fathers  affected  no  such  tinsel  or  finery.  Clemens, 
Justin,  Irenseus,  and  Tertullian  speak  of  Simon  as  of  the  other 
Apostles,  with  the  respect  due  to  his  dignity  ;  but  with  modera- 
tion and  simplicity. 

The  supremacy  of  the  Roman  bishop,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
Galilean  fisherman,  was  unknown  to  antiquity.  Some  of  the 
fathers  indeed  have,  in  the  language  of  exaggeration,  bestowed 
many  sounding  titles  on  the  Roman  patriarch,  and  pompous 
Bulogiums  on  the  Roman  church.  Irenaeus  styles  the  Roman 
See,  '  the  more  powerful  principality.'  Cyprian  calls  the 
Roman  i  the  principal  church.'  These  and  many  other  en- 
comiums of  a  similar  kind  have  been  collected  by  Beliarmine, 
Du  Pin,  and  Alexander.3  All  these,  however,  are  unmeaning 
and  unmerited  compliments,  conveyed  in  the  language  of  exag- 
geration and  flattery.  The  ancients,  in  the  same  inflated  style, 
have  complimented  other  bishops  and  other  churches  in  higher 
strains  of  hyperbolical  and  nauseous  adulation. 

Gregory,  Basil,  Constantine,  and  Paulus,  in  all  the  fulsome 
exaggeration  and  pomposity  of  diction,  bestowed  the  supremacy 
on  Cyprian,  Athanasius,  Miletius,  Constantine,  and  Irene. 
Cyprian,  says  Gregory  Nazianzen,  '  presided  not  only  over  the 
Carthaginian  and  African  church,  on  which  he  reflected  splen- 
dour ;  but  over  all  the  nations  of  the  West,  and  nearly  over  all 
the  East,  and  North,  and  South.'  Gregory  and  Basil  confer 
an  universal,  ecclesiastical  legislation  and  supremacy  on 
Athanasius  the  Alexandrian  patriarch.  *  Athanasius,'  says  Gre- 
gory quoted  by  Alexander,  '  prescribed  laws  to  the  whole 
world.'  '  The  Alexandrian  patriarch,  says  Basil,  *  bestowed  the 

1  Apostolorum  principes  Bunt  Petrus  et  Paulus.  Bernard,  220. — Nee  Paulus 
inferior  Petro.  Arab.  11.  Illos  et  electio  pares  et  labor  similes,  et  finis  fecit  aoqualea. 
Leo,  Serm.  8. 

a  Paulus  Apostolorum  maximus.  Origen,  Horn.  3.  Kcrfa  JIavhvv  p.ev  ovSsij  tcf-z't. 
Chrysostom,  11.  200.  Caput  effectus  est  nationum,  quia  obtinuit  totius  ecclesiaa 
principatum.  Gregory.  IV.  5. 

3  Iren.  III.  3.     Cyprian,  Ep.  55.     Bell.  II.  15.     Du  Pin,  314.     Alex.  1.  294. 


SUPREMACY    ASCRIBED    TO   OTHER    SEES,    BESIDES    ROME.    175 

same  care  on  all,  as  on  the  particular  church  that  was  entrusted 
to  his  inspection  by  our  common  Lord.'  Basil  who,  with  such 
kindness,  had  promoted  Athanasius  to  a  general  episcopacy,  con- 
fers, with  equal  condescension,  the  same  honour  on  Miletius, 
patriarch  of  Antioch.  '  Miletius,'  according  to  the  Roman  saint, 
*  presided  over  the  whole  church.'  Constantine  appropriated 
the  government  of  the  church  and  the  superintendence  of  the 
faith  to  himself.  *  God,'  said  the  emperor,  '  hath  appointed  me 
to  the  chief  command  in  the  church,  and  to  maintain  the  purity 
and  integrity  of  the  faith.'  /  This  assumption  of  ecclesiastical 
authority  was  addressed  to  the  Roman  pontiff  without  oppo- 
sition, and  afterward  read  in  the  sixth  general  council  with  uni- 
versal approbation.  The  imperial  theology,  therefore,  was 
stamped  with  the  broad  seal  of  synodal  and  pontifical  infalli- 
bility. Paulus,  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  when  dying,  when  the 
parting  spirit  is  supposed  to  catch  a  brighter  ray  from  heaven, 
ascribed  the  jurisdiction  of  the  whole  ecclesiastical  community 
to  the  empress  Irene.  '  The  grand  flock  of  Jesus,'  said  the 
departing  patriarch,  *  is  attached  to  the  imperial  dignity,'1  His 
dying  speech,  which  committed  the  superintendency  of  the 
Christian  commonwealth  to  a  woman,  was  received  with  general 
applause,  and  has  been  transmitted  to  posterity  as  a  specimen 
of  Catholicism  and  piety. 

The  ecclesiastical  supremacy,  in  the  same  kind  of  swollen 
diction,  has  been  attributed  to  the  Sees  of  Caesarea,  Antioch, 
Alexandria,  and  Constantinople,  by  Gregory,  Basil,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Justinian,  and  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.2  Gregory  as- 
cribed the  presidency  to  Csesarea.  According  to  the  saint  of 
Nazianzum,  '  the  whole  Christian  republic  looked  to  the  Caesar- 
ean  church  as  the  circumscribed  circle  to  the  centre.'  Basil  and 
Chrysostom  bestow  the  supremacy  on  Antioch.  Basil  repre- 
sents the  Antiochean  church  as  calculated,  '  like  a  head,  to 
supply  health  to  the  whole  body.'  Chrysostom's  language  is 

Upoxadsfai,  rtactyj  -titf  jtfTtfptoi;,  a%s8ov  fts  f^j  ccoacft  ain^s  votov  -ts  xat  fiopsov 
Xjftswj.  Gregory,  Orat,  18. 

Leges  etiam  rursus  orbi  terramm  prsescribit.     Greg,  in  Alexand.  1.  384. 

AM,  *  rj  /^spc/tra  ffot  rfaffwv  tfcov  fjexXttficov.  Basil,  1.  161.  Ep.  69.  Tw  fov 
*wto{  (jw/taf  oj  tys  txxhyaias  avrov  Ttpofcrravat.  Basil,  3.  160.  Ep.  67. 

Jussit  Deus  principaliter  nos  imperare.  Constituti  sumus  servare  fidem  sane  tarn, 
et  immaculatam.  Labb.  7.  614,  618. 

Le  6oin  de  grand  troupeau  de  Jesus  Christ  est  attache  a  votre  dignite  Imperiale, 
Andilly,  413. 

2  ilj  xsv-r'pio  xvxho$  rteptypa^o^ttsvoj.  Gregory,  Ep.  22.  flaits  p  xtfyotyv  jppWjUf  vijv 
rtavrt  -tco  crco/tan  s  iti  ^op^yftv  -tr^v  vytetav.  Basil  3.  160.  Tovto  rtotacoj  oijtw/ta, 
fovto  7tpo?6pta.  Chrysostom,  2.  176.  Horn.  XVII.  Orbis  oculum,  ad  q»ara 
extrema  terrse  undique  conveniunt,  et  a  qua  velut  communi  fidei  emporio  incipi- 
unt.  Nazianzen,  Orat.  XXXII.  H  sv  Kwvff-r'av'nvovrtoX-ft  exxtyata  rtauav 


saf-r't  xsfyahrj.     Justin.  Cod.  1.  129.     Dioecesis  Exarcham   adeat,  vel   Impe« 
rialis  urbis  Constantinopolis  throiium,  et  apud  cum  litiget.     Labb.  4.  1686. 


176  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

still  more  emphatical.     '  Antioch,'  says  the  Byzantine  patriarch, 

*  is  beyond  every  other  city  the  dearest  to  the  Son  of  God. 
This  metropolis  bestowed  the  designation  which  is  beyond  even 
the  city  of  Romulus,  and  which  confers  the  primacy  or  presi- 
dency.'    Gregory,  Justinian,  and  the  council  of  Chalcedon  con- 
ferred the  ecclesiastical  sovereignty  on  the  Constantinopolitan 
See.     Gregory  called  this  city  '  the  eye  of  the  world,  and  the 
emporium  of  the  common  faith.'     According  to  the  emperor 
Justinian,  *  the  Constantinopolitan  church  was  the  head  of  all 
others.'     Justinian  was  an  emperor,  a  legislator,  a  philosopher, 
and  a  theologian,  and  renowned  for  learning  and  wisdom.     His 
information  and  opportunity  must  have  secured  him  from  mis- 
taking and  his  integrity  and  veracity  from  misrepresenting  the 
opinions  entertained,  in  his  day,  on  this  topic.     The  council  of 
Chalcedon,  in  its  ninth  canon,  granted  a  general  right  of  receiv- 
ing and  deciding  appeals  to  the  Byzantine  See.     A  suffragan, 
according  to  the  Chalcedonian  decision, '  might  appeal  from  the 
Metropolitan  to  the  Exarch,  and  from  the  Exarch,  for  a  final 
sentence,  to  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch.' 

The  Chalcedonian  canon  so  annoyed  Nicholas  the  First  that 
ne  had  recourse,  in  his  distress,  to  an  extraordinary  or  rather 
to  an  ordinary  remedy.  His  holiness  explained  the  canon  by- 
writing  nonsense  ;  and  in  this  ingenious  manner  and  by  this 
simple  process,  removed  the  difficulty.  Diocese,  said  Nicholas, 
is,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  used  for  dioceses,  and  the  diocesan 
Exarch,  in  this  canon,  signifies  the  Roman  pontiff.1  His  infal- 
libility's explanation  is  very  sensible,  and  must  have  been  very 
satisfactory  to  himself  and  his  friends. 

The  Roman  Church  in  its  early  days,  unlike  the  same  society 
in  the  time  of  Nicholas,  was  characterized  by  humility.  All  its 
members,  according  to  the  primeval  records,  could  meet  in  one 
house.  The  whole  society,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  assem- 
bled in  the  same  place,  and  communicated  at  one  table.  '  Cor- 
nelius the  Roman  bishop  read  all  public  letters,'  says  Cyprian, 

*  to  his  numerous  and  holy  flock.' 2     On  the  death  of  Anterus, 

*  all  the  brethern  met  in  the  church  to  elect  a  successor,  and 
the  whole  people,  with  promptitude  and  unanimity,  declared 
the  eligibility  of  Fabian.'3 

The  pastor's  superintendency  extended  from  the  highest  to 
the  lowest  concerns  of  the  fold,  from  the  rich  and  the  free  to  the 
inmate  of  indigence  and  the  subject  of  slavery.  He  was  entirely 

1  Quantum  si  perhibuisset  Dioeceseon.     Labb.  9.  1331. 

3  Scium  sanctissimae  atque  ampli-ssimae  plebi  legere  te  semper  literas  nostraa. 
Cyprian,  Ep.  59.  p.  139. 

3  ASsX^ov  artavtw  .  .  .  f ttt,  Ir^  fxxtyata$  tfvyxt'fxpoi'j^f  vcov,     Toy  rfovfa  XaOF 
.  .  .  rtpoOv/jiia,  ftaay  jecu  picf.  •fyvz'y  d|tov  frtijSojJfla*.     Euseb.  VI.  29. 


PAPAL  SUPREMACY  ASSERTED  BY  FALSE  DECRETALS.  177 

unacquainted  with  the  ambition  which  actuated  the  soul  of  a 
Leo  or  a  Gregory.  The  bull  of  a  modern  pontiff  would,  to  his 
unaspiring  mind,  have  been  unintelligible.  Possessing  no  civil 
authority,  and  exposed  to  imperial  contempt,  his  jurisdiction 
was  confined  to  the  boundary  of  his  own  flock.  An  humble  and 
holy  pastor,  in  this  manner,  administered  to  a  humble  and  holy 
people. 

But  the  Roman  church  outlived  its  humility.  The  Apostolic 
See  emerged  from  obscurity,  raised  its  head  into  notoriety,  and 
displayed  all  the  madness  and  extravagance  of  ambition  in  the 
pursuit  of  dominion  and  power.  The  Roman  hierarchs  varied 
from  poverty  to  emolument,  from  obscurity  to  eminence,  and 
passed  through  all  the  gradations  of  presidence,  primacy,  super- 
intendence, supremacy,  and  despotism. 

The  primacy  of  the  Roman  bishop,  so  far  from  being  a  divine 
institution,  originated  in  the  superiority  of  the  city  in  which  he 
presided.  The  episcopacy  was,  in  rank,  assimilated  to  the 
magistracy  of  the  Roman  empire.  The  metropolitan,  the 
exarch,  and  the  patriarch  corresponded  with  the  president,  the 
vicar,  and  the  prefect.  The  church,  in  this  manner,  was,  in  its 
divisions,  adjusted  to  the  state.  The  church,  says  Optatus, 
'  was  formed  in  the  empire,  and  not  the  empire  in  the  church, 
and,  therefore,  assumed  the  same  polity.'  The  conformity  of 
the  sacerdotal  with  the  civil  goverment  has  been  clearly  shown 
by  Du  Pin  and  many  others,  such  as  Giannone,  Mezeray,  and 
Thomassin.1 

A  bishop,  therefore,-obtained  a  rank  in  the  hierarchy  in  pro- 
portion to  the  city  in  which  he  ruled.  Antioch,  Alexandria, 
and  Rome,  in  the  East,  South,  and  West,  surpassed  all  the 
other  cities  in  the  empire.  Antioch  was  the  third  city  in  the 
state,  and  its  bishop  ranked  in  the  third  place  in  the  church. 
Alexandria  was  the  second  city,  and  its  patriarch  obtained  the 
second  rank  in  the  prelacy.  Rome  was  the  metropolis,  and  its 
pontiff  accordingly  enjoyed  the  primacy.  The  Roman  church, 
says  Du  Pin,  gained  the  precedence,  '  because  Rome  was  the 
chief  city.1  Giannone  also  ascribes  the  rank  of  the  Roman 
patriarch  to  the  same  cause.  '  The  ecclesiastical,'  says  he, 
formed  itself  on  the  civil  goverment,  and  the  Roman  city  may 
boast  of  being  chief  in  religion,  as  formerly  in  the  empire  and 
the  universe.  The  innovation  was  so  natural  that  any  other 
event  would  have  been  a  kind  of  miracle.'2 

The  dependence  of  the  bishop's  dignity  on  the  eminency  of 

1  Ad  cujus  formam  ecclesia  constitute  est.  Du  Pin,  23.  L'egliae  est  etablio 
dans  1'empire.  Giannon,  II.  8.  Mezeray,  5,  464.  Thomassin  I.  12.  An.  Eccl.  56. 

3  Quia  Roraana  urbs  erat  prima.  Du  Pin,  335.  Parce  qu'il  avoit  son  siege  dans 
la  Capitale  de  1'vnivers.  Giannm,  III.  6.  Une  espece  de  miracle.  Giannoc.  II. 
8.  An.  Eccl  56  142. 

12 


178  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

the  city  appeared,  in  striking  colours,  in  the  original  obscurity 
and  future  greatness  of  the  Byzantine  hierarch.  This  bishop 
had  been  suffragan  to  the  metropolitan  of  Heraclea  and  exarch 
of  Thracia.  But  the  suffragan,  when  Constantinople  became 
the  imperial  city,  became  a  patriarch.  The  second  general 
council,  in  its  third  canon,  raised  the  Constantinopolitan  See 
above  those  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria,  and  placed  it  next  to 
that  of  Rome,  because  Constantinople  was  new  Rome  and  the 
royal  city.  The  patriarch,  in  consequence,  usurped  the  juris- 
diction of  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thracia.  The  fourth  general 
council,  in  its  twenty-eighth  canon,  conferred  equal  ecclesiasti- 
cal privileges  on  the  Byzantine  and  Roman  Sees.1 

The  usurpation  of  the  papal  hierarch  was  aided,  with  singular 
efficiency,  by  the  publication  of  the  false  decretals.  This  col- 
lection, about  the  year  800,  was  ushered  into  the  world  as  the 
work  of  the  early  pontiffs.  All  the  authority  assumed  by  mo- 
dern popes  was,  in  this  forgery,  ascribed  to  their  predecessors 
in  the  days  of  primitive  Christianity.  A  Linus  and  a  Clemens 
were,  by  this  author,  represented  as  claiming  the  supremacy 
and  wielding  the  power  afterward  arrogated  by  a  Bonifa.ce  or 
an  Innocent.2  Any  pontiff,  however  arbitrary  or  ambitious, 
could,  from  this  store,  plead  a  precedent  for  any  act  of  usurpa- 
tion or  despotism. 

This  fabrication,  which  promoted  pontifical  domination, 
displays  in  a  strong  light  the  variations  of  Romanism.  The  for- 
gery was  countenanced  by  the  sovereign  pontiffs,  and  urged  by 
Nicholas  the  First  against  the  French  prelacy.3  Its  genuine- 
ness and  authenticity,  indeed,  from  the  ninth  century  till  the 
reformation,  were  generally  admitted  ;  and  its  authority  sus- 
tained, during  this  period  of  superstition  and  credulity,  the 
mighty  fabric  of  the  pontifical  supremacy.  An  age,  enveloped 
in  darkness  and  monkery,  and  void  of  letters  and  philosophy, 
was  incapable  of  detecting  the  imposture,  though  executed  with 
a  vulgar  and  bungling  hand.  Turriano  and  Binius,  even  in 
modern  times,  have  maintained  its  authenticity.  The  dawn  of 
the  reformation,  however,  exposed  the  cheat,  in  all  its  clumsy 
and  misshapen  deformity.  'Its  anachronisms  and  contradictions 
betrayed  the  silly  and  stupid  fiction.  Its  forgery  has  been 
admitted  by  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  Erasmus,  Petavius,  Thomas- 
sin,  Pagius,  Giannone,  Perron,  Fleury,  Marca,  Du  Pin,  and 

1  Eo  quod  sit  ipsa  nova  Roma.     Crabb.  1.  411,  930.     Labb.   2.  1125.     Godeau, 
4.  497.     Recte  iudicaiites,  urbem  qua?  et  imperio  et  senatu  honorata  sit,  etaequall 

'bus  cum  antiquissima  regina  Roma  privileges  fruatur  etiam  in  rebus  ecciesiastici* 
Labb.  4.  1694.     ThomasBin,  1.  19.     Coquelle,  406. 

2  Du  Pin,  132.  et  2.  486.     Giannon,  V.  6. 

3  Has   statim   epistolas.    Summi   Pontifices   avide  arripuerunt.     Du   Fin,    13f 
Adnitente  Nicolao  I,  et  cffiteria  Romania  Pontificibus.     Labb.  1.  79. 


REJECTION  OF  PAPAL  SUPREMACY  IN  VARIOUS  COUNTRIES.       179 

Labbeus.  Du  Pin  calls  the  collection  a  medley.  Labbeus 
calls  it  '  a  deformity,  which  can  be  disguised  by  no  art  or 
colouring.'1  The  forgery  remains  a  lasting  monument  of  the 
barbarism  and  superstition  of  the  period  of  its  reception  and 
authority. 

The  domination  of  the  papacy  was,  also,  promoted  by  mis- 
sions to  the  kingdoms  of  Paganism.  The  vast  wealth  and 
rich  domains  of  the  Roman  See,  both  in  Italy  and  the  adjacent 
islands,  enabled  the  pontiff' to  support  missions  on  an  extensive 
scale  through  the  European  kingdoms,  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
selytism.  These  exertions  displayed  the  Roman  hierarch's 
zeal,  and  their  success  promoted  his  aggrandizement.  The 
churches,  established  in  this  way,  acknowledged  a  dependence 
on  the  see  by  which  they  had  been  planted. 

Romanism,  from  the  ninth  till  the  fourteenth  century,  was 
extended  over  Germany,  Hungary,  Bulgaria,  Bohemia,  Den- 
mark, Sweden,  Norway,  Finland,  Livonia,  Prussia,  and  the 
Orkney  Islands.  A  few  of  the  missionaries  sent  to  these  nations 
were  actuated  by  piety,  accompanied  indeed  with  weakness 
and  superstition.  These  visited  the  abodes  of  idolatry  and 
polytheism  in  the  midst  of  danger  and  privation,  to  communi- 
cate the  light  of  the  gospel.  But  many  of  these  nations  were 
proselyted  by  missions  of  a  different  description.  Violence  and 
compulsion  were  often  substituted  for  persuasion  and  Chris- 
tianity. The  Pagans  of  Poland,  Prussia,  and  Livonia  were 
dragooned  into  popery  by  military  dialectics.  The  martial 
apostles,  who  invaded^  these  nations  under  the  standard  of  the 
cross,  were  attached  only  to  their  own  interest,  and  the  Roman 
pontiff's  domination  and  tyranny.2  The  popedom  was  en- 
larged by  the  accession  of  the  northern  nations,  which,  con- 
verted by  Latin  missions,  submitted  to  papal  jurisdiction,  and 
swelled  the  glory  of  the  Romish  communion. 

The  papal  yoke,  received  in  this  manner  by  the  proselyted 
nations  of  the  north,  was  rejected  with  resolution  by  trie  Asiatic, 
African,  and  European  kingdoms  who  had  professed  Chris- 
tianity. The  Asians  despised  Victor's  denunciations  on  the 
subject  of  the  paschal  solemnity.  The  Africans  contemned 
Stephen's  excommunication,  on  the  topic  of  heretical  baptism. 
The  prelacy  of  Africa,  amounting  to  225  bishops,  forbade,  in 
41 8,  on  pain  of  excommunication,  all  appeals  beyond  the  sea.8 
This  canon  they  renewed  in  426  ;  while  Faustinus,  who  repre- 

1  Acleo  deformes  videntur,  ut  nulla  arte,   nulla  cerussa,  aut  purpurisso  fucari 
possint.     Labb.  2.  78.     Bellarniin,  II.  14.     Alex.  2.  218. 

2  Alex.  14.  321.     Gibbon,  c.  LV.     Giannon,  iii.  6.     Bruy.  2.  259. 

3  Ad  transmarina  qui  putaverit  appellandum,  a  nullo  inter  Airicam  in  communi 
onera  suscipiatur.     Crabb.  I.  517.     Du  Pin,  143.     Socrate*,  V.  22.     Euseb.  V.21. 

•  12* 


180  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

sented  the  pope  in  the  council,  blustered,  vapoured,  threatened, 
and  stormed,  but  all  in  vain.  The  bishops  contemned  his  fury, 
issued  their  canons,  and,  with  steady  unanimity,  repelled  papal 
aggression. 

The  usurpations  of  the  popedom  were  also  long  withstood  by 
several  of  the  European  nations,  such  as  France,  Spain,  Eng- 
land, and  Ireland.  These  continued,  for  ages,  to  repress 
Roman  despotism  with  vigor  and  effect.  Gaul  or  France  op- 
posed pontifical  encroachment,  and  maintained  metropolitical 
authority  with  the  utmost  resolution.  The  synod  of  Lyons,  in 
667,  directed  all  dissentions  among  the  clergy  to  be  terminated 
in  a  provincial  council.  Gregory  the  Fourth,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  century,  pretended  to  excommunicate  the  French 
prelacy,  who,  inclined  to  retaliation,  threatened  to  excom- 
municate Gregory.  Hincmar,  the  celebrated  French  bishop 
and  statesman,  wrote,  in  865,  the  famous  epistle,  in  which  he 
exploded  the  novelty  of  the  Decretals  and  advocated  the  canons 
of  Nicea  and  Sardica.  The  French,  says  Du  Pin,  maintained, 
in  the  tenth  century,  the  ancient  discipline  and  interdicted 
appeals.  The  Metropolitans  preserved  their  rights  inviolated, 
"  till  beyond  the  twelfth  century."1  This,  Du  Pin  shows  from 
the  works  of  Alcuin,  the  council  of  Laodicea,  and  the  Epistles 
of  Nicholas,  John,  Stephen,  Gregory,  and  Urban. 

Spain  remained  free  of  pontifical  domination  till  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  century.  The  Spanish  prelacy  and  nobility,  under 
the  protection  of  the  king  and  independent  of  foreign  control, 
continued,  prior  to  the  Moorish  conquest,  to  conduct  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Spanish  church.  Provincial  councils,  says 
Du  Pin,  in  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  judged  the  Spanish 
prelacy  without  any  appeal.  Arnolf,  Bishop  of  Orleans,  even 
at  the  close  of  the  tenth  century,  declared,  in  the  council  of 
Rheims,  without  contradiction,  that  the  Spanish  church  dis- 
claimed the  authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff.2 

Britain  continued  independent  of  papal  authority,  till  the 
end  of  the  sixth  century.  The  English,  dissenting  from  the 
Romish  institutions  and  communion,  disclaimed  the  papal 
supremacy.  Baronius  himself,  practised  in  all  the  arts  of 
evasion  and  chicanery,  admits,  on  this  occasion,  a  long  and 
dreadful  schism.  The  British,  says  Bede,  differed  from  the 
Roman  Christians  in  the  celebration  of  baptism,  the  paschal 
solemnity,  "  and  in  many  other  things."  The  points  of  dif- 
ference, according  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  historian,  were  not  few, 
but  many.  Augustine  gave  the  same  statement  as  Bede.  The 

1  Ad  duodecimum  useqne  asecnlum  et  amplius.     Du  Pin,  f>6.  130,  133.  et2.  191. 
*  In  Hispania  qnoque  vigebat,  etiam  sub  Gregorio,  veins  ilia  disciplina,  ut  causae 
ESpiscoporum  synodi  Proviucialis  judicio  finireutur.     Du  Pin,  131,  et  2.  176 


PAPAL  SUPREMACY  REJECTED  IN  BRITAIN  AND  IRELAND.    181 

English,  says  the  Roman  missionary,  "  acted,  in  many  respects, 
contrary  to  the  Roman  usage."1 

Bede's  report  has  been  corroborated  by  Goscelin,  Ranulph, 
and  Malmsbury.  The  Britons,  says  Goscelin,  "  differed  in  their 
ecclesiastical  ritual  from  the  common  observance  of  all  other 
churches ;  while,  formed  in  hostile  array,  and  opposing  the 
request  and  admonition  of  Augustine,  they  pronounced  their 
own  usages,  superior  even  to  those  of  pontifical  authority."2 

Ranulph's  statement  is  of  a  similar  description.  Augustine; 
observes  this  historian,  "  admonished  the  British  clergy  to 
correct  some  errors,  and  promised,  if  they  would  concur  with 
him  in  evangelizing  the  English,  he  would  patiently  tolerate 
their  other  mistakes.  This  offer,  however,  these  refractory 
spirits  wholly  contemned."3 

Malmsbury's  language  is  still  stronger  than  Ranulph's. 
These  islanders,  says  this  annalist,  "  preferred  their  own  to 
the  Roman  traditions,  and  to  some  other  tenets  of  Catholicism ; 
and  presisted  in  their  opinions  with  pertinacity.  The  time  of 
observing  the  paschal  festival  formed  one  principal  point  of 
controversy  between  the  Roman  missionary  and  the  British 
clergy.  The  Britons,  as  well  as  the  Scots,  who  on  this  topic, 
differed  from  the  Roman  traditions,  obstinately  refused  to  admit 
the  Roman  usage.  In  this,  they  manifested  the  utmost  in- 
flexibility. When  the  English  afterward,  in  the  synod  of 
Whitby,  in  664,  determined,  in  conformity  with  foreign  pre- 
scription, to  change  the  day  of  celebration,  the  Scottish 
clergy  left  England.  On  this  occasion,  Colman,  bishop  of  the 
Northumbrians,  seeing,  says  Bede,  "  his  doctrine  slighted  and 
his  sect  despised,  returned  to  Scotland."4 

The  Britons,  in  consequence,  disclaimed  the  supremacy  of 
Gregory  and  the  episcopacy  of  Augustine,  whom  the  pontiff 
had  commissioned  as  a  missionary  and  archbishop  in  England. 
Augustine,  on  this  topic,  conferred  with  Dinoth,  accompanied 
by  seven  British  bishops  and  several  Bangorian  monks,  at 
Augustine's  oak  on  the  frontiers  of  the  Anglo-Saxons.  Augus- 
tine, on  this  occasion,  recommended  an  acknowledgment  of  the 
papal  supremacy.  Dinoth,  speaking  for  the  English,  *  pro- 
fessed himself,  his  fellows,  and  the  nation,  attached  to  all 

1  In  multis  quidera  nostrae  consuetudini  contraria  geritis.  Beda,  II.  2.  Perplura 
ecclesiastics  castitati  et  paci  contraria  gerunt.  Beda,  203.  Spon.  604.  VIIJ. 

3  Non  solum  repugnant,  verum  etiam  suos  turns  omnibus  pneeminentiores  Sancti 
Papse  Elutherii  auctoritate  pronunciant.  Goscelin,  c.  24.  Wbarton,  2.  65. 

3  Monuit  eos  ut  quaxlam  erronea  corrigent.     Ipsi  omnino  speruerent.     Ranulph. 
V.  Ann.  601. 

4  Snis  potins  quam  Romanis  obsecundarent  traditionibus  et  plura  quidem   ali 
catholica.     Pertinacem  controversial^  ferebant.     Malmsbury,  V.  P.  349. 

Colman,  videns  spretnm  suam  doctrinam,  sectamque  esse  despectam,  iu  Scottiam 
regressus  est.  Beda.  III.  26. 


182  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

Christians,  by  the  bonds  of  love  and  charity.  This  subjection, 
he  said,  the  British  were  ready  to  pay  to  the  pontiff  and  to 
every  Christian  ;  but  were  unacquainted  with  any  other  sub- 
mission, which  they  owed  to  the  person  whom  Augustine  called 
the  pope.'1  Dinoth  and  his  companions,  though  men  of  learn- 
ing in  their  day,  seem  to  have  known  nothing  of  the  Roman 
hierarch.  The  English  bishops,  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury, had  never  heard  of  God's  vicar-general  on  earth  ;  rind 
what  was  nearly  as  bad,  cared  no  more  about  his  infallibility, 
after  his  name  had  been  mentioned,  than  about  any  other  man. 
Dinoth  also  informed  Augustine,  that  the  British  church  was 
governed  by  the  bishop  of  Caerleon,  and,  therefore,  hnd  no 
need  of  the  Roman  missionary's  service  or  superintendency. 
The  obstinate  people  refused  the  archbishop  ready  provided  for 
them  by  his  Roman  holiness.  Augustine  reasoned  and  remon- 
strated, but  in  vain.  His  auditors,  who,  according  to  Bede, 
preferred  their  own  traditions  to  the  universal  church,  were 
deaf  to  entreaty  and  reproof. 

Ireland  maintained  its  independency  still  longer  than  Eng- 
land. This  nation  rejected  the  papal  supremacy  and  indeed 
all  foreign  domination,  till  its  conquest  by  Henry  at  the  end  of 
the  twelfth  century.  The  Scottish  and  Irish  communions,  Ba 
ronius  admits,  were  involved  in  the  same  schism.  Bede  accuses 
the  Irish  of  fostering  hatred  to  Romanism,  and  of  entertaining 
a  heterodox  profession.  Laurentius,  Justus,  and  Mellitus  in 
614,  in  their  epistolary  communication  to  the  Irish  clergy  and 
laity,  indentified  the  Hibernian  with  the  British  church.  Dagan* 
an  Irish  bishop,  refused  to  eat,  sit  in  company,  or  remain  under 
the  roof  with  the  Roman  bishops.1 

Ireland,  for  many  ages,  was  a  school  of  learning  for  the  Eu- 
ropean nations  ;  and  she  maintained  her  independency,  and 
repressed  the  incursions  of  foreign  control  during  the  days  of 
her  literary  glory.  But  the  Danish  army  invaded  the  kingdom, 
slew  her  sons,  wasted  her  fields,  and  demolished  her  colleges. 
Darkness,  literary  and  moral,  succeeded,  and  prepared  the  way 
for  Romanism.  The  dissensions  of  the  native  sovereigns  aug- 
mented the  misery  of  the  distracted  nation,  and  fa.cilita.ted  the 
progress  of  popery.  King  Henry,  patronized  by  Pope  Adrian, 

1  Aliam  obedientiam  quam  hanc  non  scio  debitam  ei  qnem  vos  nominates  Papam 
Sed  obedientiam  hanc  sumus  noa  parati  dare  et  solvere  ei  et  cuique  Christiano 
Beda,  71G.  Bruys,  1.  371.  Mabilion,  1.  279,  280. 

9  Romanam  constietudinem  odio  habuerunt.  Bcda,  702.  Professionem  minus 
ecclesiasticam  in  multis  esse  cognovit.  Beda,  II.  4.  Spon  604  VIII. 

Dagaims   episcopus   ad  nos  veniens,  non  solum  cibum  nobiscum,  sed  nee  in 
dem  hospitio,  quo  vescebamnr,  sumere  voluit.     Beda,  83,  702 
Ecclesi;e  Romans?  de  singulis  domibus  annuatim  unius  denarii  pensare.      Tri« 
rtus,  An.  1155.     Dachery,  3.  151. 


TITLE  OF  UNIVERSAL  BISHOP  CONFERRED  BY  PHOCAS.     1S3 

completed  the  system  of  pontifical  subjugation.  The  vicar- 
general  of  God  transferred  the  whole  island  to  the  monarch 
of  England  for  many  pious  ends  ;  and  especially  for  the  pay- 
ment of  an  annual  tax  of  one  penny  from  each  family  to  the 
holy  Roman  see. 

The  usurpations  of  the  papacy,  therefore,  were  effected  by 
gradual  innovation.  Several  nations,  in  defiance  of  pontifical 
claims  and  ambition,  maintained  thek  freedom  for  many  ages. 
The  progress  of  Roman  encroachments,  was,  for  many  years, 
very  slow,  though  supported  by  the  energy  of  Leo,  Gregory, 
Nicholas,  John,  Innocent  and  Boniface.  Leo  the  Great, 
indeed,  seems  to  have  felt  all  the  activity  of  genius  and  am- 
bition :  and  he  attempted  in  consequence,  by  many  skilful  and 
rapid  movements,  to  enlarge  the  circle  of  his  power.  He 
pointed  his  spiritual  artillery  against  the  Gallican  church  ;  but 
was  repelled  with  resolution  and  success.  His  ecclesiastical 
tactics,  though  well  concerted,  were  in  the  main  unsuccessful ; 
and  papal  usurpation  made  little  progress  through  any  part  of 
Christendom,  till  the  accession  of  Gregory  in  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century. 

The  sainted  Gregory  was  distinguished,  not  by  his  learning 
or  integrity,  but  by  his  ambition  and  activity.  His  works  are 
void  of  literary  taste,  and  his  life  was  a  tissue  of  superstition, 
priestcraft,  monkery,  intolerance,  formality,  arid  dissimulation. 
He  maintained  a  continual  correspondence  with  kings  ;  and  as 
occasion  dictated,  employed,  with  temporising  versatility,  the 
language  of  devotion  or  flattery.  His  great  aim  was  to  repress 
the  Byzantine  patriarch,  and  to  exalt  the  Roman  pontiff. 
During  Gregory's  reign,  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch,  actu- 
ated by  a  silly  vanity  and  countenanced  by  the  Emperor  Mau- 
ricius,  assumed  the  title  of  universal  bishop.  This  appellation, 
noisy  and  empty,  was  unattended  by  any  new  accession  of 
power.  But  the  sounding  distinction,  unmeaning  as  it  was  in 
itself,  and  suitable,  as  the  emperor  seems  to  have  thought  it, 
to  the  bishop  of  the  imperial  city,  awoke  Gregory's  jealousy 
and  hostility.  His  holiness,  accordingly,  pronounced  the 
dignity,  vain-glorious,  proud,  profane,  impious,  execrable, 
heretical,  blasphemous,  diabolical,  and  antichristian :  and 
endeavoured,  with  unremitting  activity,  to  rouse  all  the  powers 
of  the  earth  for  its  extinction.  His  saintship,  had  the  spirit  of 
prophecy  been  among  the  number  of  his  accomplishments, 
would,  in  all  probability,  have  spoken  with  more  caution  about 
a  title  afterward  arrogated  by  his  successors.  The  usurper  of 
this  appellation,  according  to  Gregory,  was  the  harbinger  and 
herald  of  Antichrist.  His  infallibility,  of  course,  in  designating 


184  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

the  pope  antichrist,  had  the  honour  of  anticipating  Luther  neai 
a  thousand  years. 

Mauricius  refused  to  take  the  title  of  universal  bishop  from 
the  Byzantine  patriarch.  But  the  emperor's  reign  soon  termi- 
nated in  the  rebellion  of  Phocas,  a  centurion  who  assassinated 
the  royal  family  and  seized  the  imperial  throne.  The  usurper, 
on  this  occasion,  was  a  monster  of  inhumanity.  Some  tyrants 
have  been  cruel  from  policy.  But  Phocas  seems  to  have  been 
actuated  with  unalloyed  disinterested  malignity,  unconnected 
with  any  end  except  the  gratification  of  a  malevolent  and  infer- 
nal mind.  He  massacred  five  of  his  predecessor's  sons  before 
the  eyes  of  the  father,  whom  he  reserved  to  the  last  that  he 
might  be  a  spectator  of  his  family's  destruction.  The  youngest 
boy's  nurse  endeavoured  to  substitute  her  own  child  in  the  place 
of  the  emperor's.  Mauricius,  however,  discovered  and  pre- 
vented the  design,  and  delivered  the  royal  infant  to  the  execu- 
tioner. This  noble  action  extorted  tears  from  the  eyes  of  all 
the  other  spectators,  but  made  no  impression  on  the  tyrant. 
The  assassination  of  the  emperor's  brother  and  the  chief  patri- 
cians followed.  The  empress  Constantina  and  the  princesses 
were  next,  by  the  most  solemn  oaths  and  promises  of  safety, 
allured  from  their  asylum  in  a  church,  and  fell  the  helpless 
victims  of  relentless  fury.  Phocas  was  deformed  in  body  as 
well  as  in  mind.  His  aspect  inspired  terror  ;  and  he  was  void 
of  genius,  learning,  truth,  honour,  or  humanity,  and  the  slave 
of  drunkenness,  impudicity,  licentiousness,  and  cruelty.1 

This  demon  of  inhumanity ,  however,  became  the  object  of 
his  infallibility's  unqualified  flattery,  for  the  promotion  of  pro- 
jects of  ambition  and  despotism.  His  holiness  hailed  the 
miscreant's  accession,  in  strains  suited  only  to  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah,  The  hierarch  celebrated  the  piety  and  benignity  of 
the  assassin,  and  welcomed  the  successful  rebellion  or  the 
usurper  as  the  joy  of  heaven  and  earth.2  His  saintship,  in  fond 
anticipation,  grasped  the  title  of  universal  bishop  as  the  reward 
of  his  prostituted  adulation  and  blasphemy.  But  death  arrested 
his  career,  and  prevented  the  transfer  of  the  disputed  and  envied 
honour.  Gregory's  ambition  and  ability,  however,  succeeded 
in  extending  the  limits  and  advancing  the  authority  of  the  pope- 
dom.  Claims,  hitherto  disputed  or  half-preferred,  assumed 
under  his  superintendence  a  more  definite  form  ;  while  nations, 
too  ignorant  to  compare  precedents  or  examine  principles, 
yielded  to  his  reputation  and  ability. 

Gregory's  successors,  for  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
seems  to  have  obtained  no  material  accessions  of  ecclesiastical 

1  Spon.  602.  VI.     Godeau,  5.  43.     Bray.  1.  402,  400. 

*  Poiitilex.  Phocam  crudelissimum  multis  laudibua  extulit.     Du  Pin.  279. 


USURPATION  OF  THE  POPES.  185 

power.  The  infernal  Phocas,  indeed,  according  to  many 
Historians,  wrested  the  title  of  universal  bishop  from  the  Byzan- 
tine patriarch,  and  entailed  it  in  perpetuity  on  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff? Some  modern  publications  annex  considerable  importance 
to  this  transaction,  and  even  date  the  papal  supremacy  from 
this  epoch.  But  this,  as  many  reasons  show,  was  no  leading 
fact,  much  less  a  marked  era  in  the  history  of  the  papacy.  The 
truth  of  the  narration  is  very  questionable.  The  contemporary 
historians  are  silent  on  this  topic.  The  relation  rests  on  the 
sole  credit  of  Baronius,  who,  on  account  of  his  modernness  as 
well  as  his  partiality,  is  no  authority.  Pelagius  and  Gregory 
had  disclaimed  the  title,  which,  for  some  centuries,  was  not 
retained  by  the  successors  of  Boniface.  The  Roman  pontiff, 
says  Gratian,  '  is  not  universal,'  though  some  refer  its  assump- 
tion to  the  ninth  century.2  But  the  account,  even  if  true,  is 
unimportant.  The  application,  intended  merely  as  complimen- 
tal  and  honorary,  was  not  new  nor  accompanied  with  any  fresh 
accessions  of  authority.  The  title  had  been  given  to  Pope  Leo 
the  Great,  by  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  and  to  the  Byzantine 
patriarchs  by  the  emperors  Leo  and  Justinian.  Leo  had  called 
Stephen  Universal,  and  Justinian,  at  a  latter  date,  had,  in  the 
same  style,  mentioned  Mennas,  Epiphanias,  and  Anthemius. 
The  patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  before,  as  well  as  after  Boni- 
face, were  called  universal  bishops.  Phocas,  indeed,  rescinded 
the  dignity.  But  the  title  was  afterwards  restored  by  Hera- 
clius  the  sucessor  of  Phocas,  and  retained  with  the  utmost 
pertinacity.3 

But  Phocas,  if  he  did  not  bestow  the  title  of  universal  bishop 
on  the  Roman  pontiff,  conferred  something,  which,  if  belief  may 
be  attached  to  Anastasius,  Bede,  and  Paul  the  Deacon,  was 
equivalent  or  even  superior.  The  primacy,  claimed  by  the 
eastern  patriarch,  this  emperor,  according  to  these  historians, 
transferred  to  the  western  pontiff'.4  The  primacy,  ho\vever, 
obtained  in  this  manner,  could  have  no  pretensions  to  be  of 
ecclesiastical  or  divine  origin  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  like  all  the 
honours  of  the  papacy,  was  of  civil  and  human  authority. 

1  Nomen  universalis  episcopi  decere  Romanam  tantummodo  ecclesiam.      Spon. 
606,  11. 

2  Nee  etiam  Romanus  Pontifex  universalis  est  appellandus.    Gratian,  303    Anon. 
180. 

3  Godeau,  4,  500.     Thorn.  I.  2.     Du  Pin.  328.     Giannon,  III.  6. 

4  Hie  obtinuit  apud  Phocam  principem,  ut  sedes  Apostolica  beati  Petri  Apostoli, 
caput  esse  omnium  ecclesiarum,  id  est,  ecclesia  Romana,  quia  ecclesia  Constanti- 
nopolitana  primam  se  omnium  acclesiarum  scribebat.  Anastasius,  24.  in  Bon.  3. 

Hie,  rogante  Papa  Bonifacio,  statuit,  sedem  Romanse  et  Apostolicse  ecclesise  caput 
esse  omnium  ecclesiarum,  quia  ecclesia  Constantinopolitana  primam  se  omnium 
ecclesiarum  scribebat.  Beda  in  Chron.  29.  Paul  Diacon,  4,  47, 

Apud  Phocam  obtinuit,  ut  Romae  ecclesia  omnium  caput  eccleiiarum  decernere- 
tar.  Hermann  Ann.  608.  Canasius,  3,  231.  Fordun.  III.  32. 


186  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

Nicholas  and  John,  in  the  ninth  century,  laid  the  foundation, 
and  Gregory,  in  the  eleventh,  raised  the  superstructure.  The 
latter  completed  the  outline,  which  the  two  former  had  begun. 
The  skeleton,  which  Nicholas  and  John  had  organized,  Gregory 
clothed  with  flesh,  supplied  with  blood,  and  inspired  with  life 
and  activity.  Innocent  the  Third  seemed,  if  possible,  to 
out-rival  Gregory  in  the  career  of  usurpation  and  tyranny. 
Unwearied  application,  extensive  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical 
law,  and  vigilant  observation  of  passing  events,  sustained  this 
pontiff's  fearless  activity ;  and  he  obtained  the  three  great 
objects  of  his  pursuit,  sacerdotal  sovereignty,  regal  monarchy, 
and  dominion  over  kings.  Boniface  the  Eighth  walked  in 
Innocent's  steps,  and  endeavored  to  surpass  his  predecessor  in 
the  paths  of  despotism.  During  the  period  which  elapsed  from 
Innocent  till  Boniface,  the  sun  of  pontifical  glory  shone  in  all  its 
meridian  splendour.  The  thirteenth  century  constituted  the 
noonday  of  papal  domination.  Rome,  mistress  of  the  world, 
inspired  all  the  terrors  of  her  ancient  name,  thundering  anathe- 
mas, interdicting  nations,  and  usurping  authority  over  councils 
and  kings.  Christendom,  through  all  its  extended  realms  of 
mental  and  moral  darkness,  trembled  while  the  pontiff  fulmi- 
nated excommunications.  Monarchs  quaked  on  their  thrones 
at  the  terror  of  papal  deposition,  and  crouched  before  his 
spiritual  power  like  the  meanest  slaves.  The  clergy  considered 
his  holiness  as  the  fountain  of  their  subordinate  authority,  and 
the  way  to  future  promotion.  The  people  immersed  in  gross 
ignorance  and  superstition,  viewed  his  supremacy  as  a  ter- 
restrial deity,  who  wielded  the  temporal  and  eternal  destinies 
of  man.  The  wealth  of  nations  flowed  into  the  sacred  treasury, 
and  enabled  the  successor  of  the  Galilean  fisherman  and  head 
of  the  Christian  commonwealth,  to  rival  the  splendour  of 
eastern  pomp  and  grandeur. 


CHAPTER  V. 


INFALLIBILITY. 

PONTIFICAL     INFALLIBILITY — ITS      OBJECT,       FORM,      AND      UNCERTAINTY SYNODlt, 

INFALLIBILITY PONTIFICAL        AND        SYNODAL        INFALLIBILITY ECCLESIASTICAL 

INFALLIBILITY ITS     ABSURDITY ITS    IMPOSSIBILITY. 

THE  infallibility  of  the  church,  like  the  supremacy  of  the  pope, 
presents  an  inviting  theme  to  the  votary  of  papal  superstition. 
A  genuine  son  of  Romanism  expatiates  on  this  topic  with  great 
pride  and  volubility.  But  the  boasted  unity  of  pretended 
Catholicism  has  on  this,  as  on  every  other  question,  diverged 
into  a  heterogeneous  medley  of  jarring  opinions  and  contending 
systems.  The  ablest  advocates  of  infallibility  cannot  tell  in 
whom  this  prerogative  is  placed.  Its  seat,  in  consequence,  has, 
even  among  its  friends,  become  the  subject  of  tedious  as  well  as 
useless  discussion. 

All  indeed  seem  to  agree  in  ascribing  infallibility  to  the 
church.  But  this  agreement  in  word  is  no  proof  of  unity  in 
opinion.  Its  advocates  differ  in  the  interpretation  of  the  term  ; 
and  apply  to  the  expression  no  less  than  four  different  signifi- 
cations. Four  conflicting  factions,  in  consequence,  exist  on 
this  subject  in  the  Romish  communion.  One  party  place 
infallibility  in  the  chitrch  virtual  or  the  Roman  pontiff'.  A 
second  faction  seat  inerrability  in  the  church  representative  or 
a  general  council.  A  third  class,  ascribe  this  prerogative  to  a 
union  of  the  church,  virtual  and  representative,  or,  in  other 
terms,  to  a  general  council  headed  by  the  Roman  pontiff*.  A 
fourth  division,  rejecting  the  other  systems,  persist  in  attributing 
exemption  from  error  only  to  the  church,  collective  or  dispersed, 
embracing  the  whole  body  of  professors,  clergy  and  laity. 

One  party  place  infallibility  in  the  church  virtual,  or  Roman 
pontiff.1  This  may  be  called  the  Italian  system.  The  Italian 
clergy,  placed  under  the  influence  of  the  pope,  concur  with 
abject  submission  in  this  opinion.  These  receive  the  official 

1  Per  ecclesiam  intelligimus  pontificem  Romanum.  Gretser.  c.  10.  Papa  vir 
tualiter  est  tola  ecclesia.  Herv.  c.  XXIII,  Jacobatius,  I.  p.  63. 


188  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

definitions  of  the  supreme  hierarch  on  faith  and  morals  as  the 
divine  oracles  of  infallibility . 

This  system,  in  all  its  absurdity,  has  been  patronized  by 
theologians,  popes,  and  councils.  Many  Romish  doctors  have 
entertained  this  opinion,  such  as  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius, 
Carranza,  Pighius,  Turrecrema,  Canus,  Pole,  Duval,  Lainez, 
Aquinas,  Cajetan,  Pole,  Fabulottus,  and  Palavicino.  Several 
pontiffs,  as  might  be  expected,  have  been  found  in  the  same 
ranks  ;  such  as  Pascal,  Pius,  Leo,  Pelagius,  Boniface,  and 
Gregory.1  These,  and  many  others  who  have  joined  the  same 
standard,  form  a  numerous  and  influential  faction  in  the  bosom 
of  the  papacy.  Bellarmine,  Duval,  and  Arsdekin,  indeed, 
have  represented  this  as  the  common  sentiment  entertained  by 
all  popish  theologians  of  distinction.2 

This  system  seems  also  to  have  been  embraced  by  the  councils 
of  Florence,  Lateran,  and  Trent.  These  conventions  conferred 
on  the  pontiff  an  authority,  above  all  councils.  The  pontifical, 
therefore,  is  superior  to  synodal  authority,  and  according  to  the 
Florentine  ana  Lateran  decisions,  must  possess  infallibility. 
The  Lateran  synod,  besides,  renewed  and  approved  the  bull  of 
Boniface  the  Eighth,  which  declared  subjection  to  the  Roman 
pontiff  necessary  to  all  for  salvation.  *  The  pope.'  said  Cardillus 
in  the  council  of  Trent,  without  contradiction,  '  is  so  supplied 
with  the  divine  aid  and  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  he  cannot 
err  to  a  degree  of  scandal,  in  defining  faith  or  enacting  general 
laws.'  3  These  councils  were  general,  and  accounted  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  whole  church.  The  belief  of  pontifical 
exemption  from  error,  therefore,  was  not  confined  to  a  mere 
party,  but  extended  to  the  whole  communion. 

The  infallibility  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  maintained  in  this 
manner  by  theologians,  popes,  and  councils,  has  also  been 
rejected  by  similar  authority.  Doctors,  pontiffs,  synods,  and 
indeed  all  antiquit}r,  have  denied  the  inerrability  of  his  Roman 
holiness.  The  absurdity  has  been  disclaimed  by  Gerson, 
Launoy,  Almain,  Richerius,  Alliaco,  Victoria,  Tostatus,  Lyra, 
Alphonsus,  Marca,  Du  Pin,  Bossuet,  and  many  other  Romish 
divines.  Many  popes  also  have  disowned  this  prerogative,  such 
as  Damasus,  Celestin,  Pius,  Gelasius,  Innocent,  Eugenius, 


*  Bell.  IV  2.  Fabul.  c.  8.  Caron,  c.  18.  Du  Pin,  336.  Labb.  18.  1427. 
Maimbourg,  56. 

2  H;L>C  doctrina  commnnis  est  inter  omnes  not®  theologos.      Aradekin,  1.  118. 

3Arsdekin,  1,  114,   118.      Du  Pin,  3.  148-     Crabb,  3.  697.     Labb.  19.  968. 

Romanum  pontificetn,  neque  in  rebus  fidei  definiendis  neque  etiam  in  condendii 
legibus  general  ibus,  UBquam  sic  errane  posse,  ut  scnndalo  sit  aliis.  Nam  in  his  rebua 
perpetuo  illi  adest  Sjiiritus  Sancti  patrocini&m  lumenque  Divinnm,  quo  ejus  niens 
copiose  adomodum  itlustrata,  velut  manu  ducatur.  Cardill.  in  Labb.  20.  1177, 


PONTIFICAL    INFALLIBILITY.  189 

Adrian,  and  Paul.1  The  French  likewise  explode  this  claim. 
These  superhuman  pretenisons  have  been  also  rejected  by  the 
general  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil. 

The  assertors  of  pontifical  infallibility,  outraging  common 
sense  and  varying  i'rom  others,  have  also,  on  this  subject, 
differed  among  themselves.  Few  indeed  have  had  the  effrontery 
to  represent  even  the  pope,  as  unerring  in  all  his  decisions.  His 
holiness,  according  to  Bellarmine  and  Dens,  may,  in  a  personal 
and  private  capacity,  be  subject  to  mistake,  and,  according  to 
Costerus,  be  guilty  of  heresy  and  infidelity.  The  Transalpines 
accordingly,  have  disagreed  among  themselves  on  the  object, 
form,  and  certainty  of  infallibility. 

The  object  of  infallibility  has  been  one  topic  of  disputation 
among  the  partizans  of  the  Italian  school.  These  contend 
whether  this  prerogative  of  his  holiness  be  restricted  to  faith  or 
extended  to  fact.  The  majority  seem  to  confine  this  attribute 
of  the  pontiff'  to  faith,  and  admit  his  liability  to  error  in  fact. 
Bellarmine  and  his  partizans  seem  to  limit  inerrability  to  the 
former,  and  leave  the  latter  to  the  contingency  of  human 
ignorance  and  imbecility.  One  party,  however,  though  a  small 
one,  in  the  Romish  communion,  would  cover  even  the  varying 
form  of  discipline  with  the  shield  of  infallibility. 

The  Jesuits  in  general,  would  extend  infallibility  both  to 
questions  of  right  and  of  fact.  These  patrons  of  syncophancy 
and  absurdity,  in  their  celebrated  thesis  of  Clermont,  acknow- 
ledged an  unerring  judge  of  controversy  in  both  these  respects. 
This  judge,  according  to  Jesuitical  adulation,  is  the  pope,  who, 
seeing  with  the  eye  of  the  church  and  enlightened  with  divine 
illumination,  is  unerring  as  the  Son  of  God,  who  imparts  the 
infallibility  which  he  possesses.2  We  tremble  while  we  wnte 
such  shocking  blasphemy.  John,  Boniface,  and  Alexander, 
monsters  of  iniquity,  were,  according  to  this  statement,  inspired 
by  God  and  infallible  as  Emmanuel.  Talon,  the  French 
advocate  general,  protesting  against  this  insult,  on  reason  and 
common  sense,  stigmatized  it  as  impiety  and  blasphemy. 

This  blasphemy,  however,  was  not  confined  to  the  cringing, 
unprincipled  Jesuits.  Leo,  in  the  Lateran  council  in  the 

1  Certum  est  quod  pontifex  possit  errare  etiam  in  iis,  qua;  tangunt  fidem.  Adrian, 
G.  De  min.  Art.  3.  Maimbourg,  138.  Non  dubito.  quin  ego  et  decessores  mei 
errare  aliquando  potuerimus.  Paul,  4  in  Maimb.  139.  Du  Pin,  364.  Caron,  c  18. 
Launoy,  1,  145.  Galli  aliique  moderni  ipsius  infallibilitatem  impugnant.  Dens,  i. 
5.  Ptipa  solas  potest  errare  et  ease  hareticus.  Panormitan,  Q.  I.  N.  21.  P  140. 

"  Papam  non  minus  infallibilem  in  materia  facti  vel  juris  ease  quam  fuerit  Jesus 
Christus.  Caron.  60.  Walsh,  p.  9.  Nullum  errorem  cadere  posse  in  doctrinam, 
quam  Pontifex  authoritate  summa  definit  et  proponit  universae  ecclesiu?,  sive  ills 
juris  sive  facti  quaestionem  contineat.  Arsdekin,  1,  124. 

Fapam,  nee  dicto  nee  facto,  errare  posse  credebant.     Barclay,  35.  c.  4 


190  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

eleventh  session,  recognized  the  same  principle  in  all  its 
hatefulness  and  deformity.  He  declared  his  ability  to  *  supply 
the  defects  both  of  right  and  fact,  from  his  certain  knowledge 
and  from  the  plenitude  of  his  apostolic  power.' 1  The  declaration 
was  made  with  the  full  approbation  of  the  holy  Roman  synod, 
which  represented  the  universal  church.  Its  belief,  therefore, 
should,  in  the  papal  communion  be  an  article  of  faith  and  its 
rejection  a  heresy.  The  Jansenists,  on  this  topic,  opposed  the 
Jesuits,  and  betrayed,  by  their  disputations,  the  boasted  unity 
of  Catholicism. 

The  Italian  school  also  vary  with  respect  to  the  form  of 
infallibility.  This  party  indeed  confess  the  pope's  liability  to 
error  and  deception,  like  other  men,  in  a  private  or  personal 
capacity,  and  limit  his  infallibility  to  his  official  decisons,  or 
when  he  speaks  from  the  chair.  But  the  friends  of  official 
infallibility,  agreeing  in  word,  have  disagreed  about  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  term.  One  variety,  on  this  topic,  represents 
nis  holiness,  as  speaking  with  official  authority  when  he  decides 
in  council.  This  explanation  has  been  patronized  by  Viguerius, 
Bagot,  and  Monilian.  But  these,  it  is  plain,  betray  their  own 
cause,  by  transferring  infallibility  from  the  pope  to  his  council. 
A  second  variety  limit  his  judicial  sentences  to  the  determina- 
tions which  he  delivers  according  to  Scripture  and  tradition. 
This  interpretation  has  been  countenanced  by  C allot  and 
Turrecrema.  But  these,  like  the  former,  miss  their  aim,  and 
ascribe  infallibility,  not  to  the  pope,  but  to  Scripture  and  tradi- 
tion. The  difficulty  still  remains,  to  know  when  his  holiness 
speaks  in  accordance  with  these  standards.  A  third  variety, 
supported  by  Canus  and  his  partizans,  reckon  these  official 
instructions,  such  as  are  uttered  after  mature  and  diligent 
examination.2  But  all  the  wisdom  of  Canus,  and  his  friends, 
and  perhaps  a  subsidy,  would  be  necessary  to  distinguish 
between  the  pontiff's  deliberate  and  hasty  determinations. 

The  fourth  and  commonest  variety,  on  this  topic,  is  that  of 
Bellarmine,  Duva.1,  Raynald,  Dens,  and  Cajetan.  His  holiness, 
according  to  these  doctors,  utters  his  oracles  from  the  chair 
when,  in  a  public  capacity,  he  teaches  the  whole  church  con- 
cerning faith  and  morality.8  But  a  difficulty  still  remains  to 
determine  when  ihis  is  the  case  ;  and  this  difficulty  has  divided 
the  advocates  of  this  folly  into  several  factions.  The  pontiff, 

1  Tarn  juris  quam  facti  defectus  supplentes,  ex  certa  nostra  scientia,  et  de  Apoa* 
tolica?  potestatis  plenitudine.     Labb.  19.  968. 

2  Launoy,  ad  Metay.  Du  Pin,  340.     Mtrimb.  55.     Launoy,  3.  29,  40. 
3Censetur  loqni  ex  cathedr&  qu?mdo  loquitur  ex  plenitudine  potestatis,  praescribena 

tmiversali  ecclesire  aliquid  tanquam  dogma  fide  credendum  vel  in  moribus  obser* 
vandum.  Dens,  1.  159.  Du  Pin,  341.  Launoy,  3.  24.  Maimbourg,  56. 


PONTIFICAL    INFALLIBILITY.  191 

say  some,  teaches  the  whole  church,  when  he  enacts  laws 
and  say  others,  when  he  issues  rescripts.  The  pontift,  says 
Tannerus  and  Compton,  instructs  the  whole  ecclesiastical 
community,  when  his  bull  has,  for  some  time,  been  affixed  to 
the  apostolic  chancery.  This,  which  Du  Pin  calls  the  height  of 
folly,  is  indeed  the  concentrated  spirit  of  sublimated  nonsense. 
Maimbourg  requires  public  and  solemn  prayer,  with  the  con- 
sultation of  many  councils  and  universities. 

The  certainty  or  uncertainty  of  pontifical  exemption  from 
error  has,  in  the  Romish  communion,  been  a  subject  of  dis- 
agreement and  disputation.  While  the  Ultramontane  contends 
for  its  truth,  and  the  Cisalpine  for  its  falsehood,  a  numerous  and 
influential  party  maintain  its  utter  uncertainty,  and  represent 
it  as  a  question,  not  of  faith,  but  of  opinion.  The  class-book 
of  Mavnooth  stoutly  advocates  the  probability  of  both  systems.1 
The  sage  writer's  penetrating  eye  could,  at  a  glance,  discern 
the  probability  of  two  contradictory  propositions.  The  author 
must  have  been  a  man  of  genius.  Anglade,  Slevin.,  and 
Kenny,  at  the  Maynooth  examination,  declared,  on  oath, 
their  indecision  on  this  inquiry.  The  learned  doctors  could 
not  tell  whether  their  visible  head  be  the  organ  of  truth  or  the 
channel  of  error,  even  in  his  official  decisions  and  on  points  of 
faith.  A  communion,  which  boasts  of  infallibility,  cannot 
determine  whether  the  sovereign  pontiff,  the  plenipotentiary 
of  heaven,  and  '  the  father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians,'  be, 
even  when  speaking  from  the  chair,  the  oracle  of  Catholicism 
or  of  heresy. 

A  second  faction  seat  inerrability  in  the  church  representa- 
tive or  a  general  council.  An  ecumenical  synod,  according  to 
this  class,  is  the  sovereign  tribunal,  which  all  ranks  of  men, 
even  the  Roman  pontiff  himself,  are  bound  to  obey.  An 
assembly  of  this  kind,  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  superior  to 
the  pope,  and  supreme  judge  of  controversy.  The  pontiff,  in 
case  of  disobedience,  is  subject  to  deposition  by  the  same 
authority.2 

This  is  the  system  of  the  French  or  Cisalpine  school.  The 
Gallican  church  has  distinguished  itself,  in  every  age,  by  its 
opposition  to  pontifical  usurpation  and  tyranny.  The  pontiff's 
authority,  in  consequence,  never  obtained  the  same  prevalence 
in  France  as  in  several  other  nations  of  Christendom,  and  his 
infallibility  is  one  of  those  claims  which  the  French  school 
never  acknowledged.  His  liability  to  error,  even  on  questions 
of  faith,  has  accordingly  been  maintained  by  the  ablest  French 

''Utramque  sententiam  esse  probabilem.  Anglade,  180,  181.     Slevin,  201.  202 
Kenney,  37. 
8  Du  Pin,  3,  283.     Gibert,  2.  7.     Crabb.  2.  1018.     Carranza,  5G5. 


192  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

divines,  such  as  Launoy,  Gerson,  Aknain,  Ricberius,  Maim- 
bourg,  Marca,  Bossuet,  and  Du  Pin.  These  doctors  have  been 
supported  by  many  French  universities,  such  as  Paris,  Angiers, 
Tolouse,  and  Orleans,  which  have  been  followed  by  those  of 
Louvain,  Herford,  Cologne,  Cracow,  and  Vienna.  Many 
pontiffs,  also,  such  as  Damasus,  Celestine,  Felix,  Adrian, 
Gelasius,  Leo,  Innocent,  and  Eugenius,  admitting  their  own 
liability  to  error,  have  referred  infallibility  to  a  general  council.1 

The  general  councils  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil,  enacted 
a  similiar  decision.  These  proceeded,  without  any  ceremony, 
to  the  demolition  of  pontifical  supremacy  and  inerrability.  All 
this  is  contained  in  the  superiority  of  a  council  to  the  pope,  as 
established  by  these  synods,  as  well  as  by  their  deposition  of 
Benedict,  Gregory,  John,  and  Eugenius.  These  pontiffs,  the 
fathers  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil  found  guilty  of  contu- 
macy, incorrigibility,  simony,  perjury,  schism,  and  heresy,  and 
founded  synodal  authority  on  the  ruins  of  papal  presumption 
and  despotism.  The  Basilians,  in  express  terms,  declared  the 
pope's  fallibility,  and,  in  many  instances,  his  actual  heresy. 
Some  of  the  supreme  pontiffs,  said  these  legislators,  *  have 
fallen  into  heresy  and  error.  The  pope  may  and  often  does 
err.  History  and  experience  show,  that  the  pope,  though  the 
head  and  chief,  has  often  been  guilty  of  error.'2  These  quo- 
tations are  plain  and  expressive  of  the  council's  sentiments  on 
the  Roman  hierarch's  pretended  exemption  from  the  common 
weakness  of  humanity. 

The  French,  in  this  manner,  are  opposed  to  the  Italian 
school.  Theologian  is  opposed  to  theologian,  pope  to  pope, 
university  to  university,  and  council  to  council.  The  council 
of  the  Lateran,  in  a  particular  manner,  contradicts  the  council 
of  Basil.  Leo,  in  the  former  assembly  and  with  its  entire 
approbation,  declared  his  certain  knowledge  both  of  right  and 
fact.  The  latter  congress,  in  the  plainest  language,  admitted 
the  pope's  fallibility  and  actual  heresy.3 

A  third  class  ascribe  infallibility  to  a  union  of  the  church 
virtual  and  representative,  or  to  a  general  council  headed  by 
the  Roman  pontiff.  These,  in  general,  require  pontifical  con- 
vocation, presidency,  and  confirmation  to  confer  on  a  council 
legality  and  validity.  A  pope  or  synod,  according  to  this 
theory,  may,  when  disconnected,  fall  into  error;  but,  when 

1  Hanc  ease  ecclesiae  Gallicanae  certain  et  indub'itabilemdoctrinam.     Arsdekin, 
1.117.     Affirmativam  tuentur  Galli.     Dens,  2.  156.     Launoy,   145.     Du  Pin,  362, 
364.     Maimbourg,  c.  15.     Caron,  c.  18. 

2  Nonnulli  summi  Pontifices,   in  haereses  et   errores   lapsi   leguntur.     Errante 
Pontifice,   sicut  saepe  contingit,    et  contingere  potest.     Crabb,  3.   12,   146.  148 
Bin.  8.  22.     Carranza,  580.     Du  Pin,  361,  404. 

3]<abb.  19.  968.     Crabb.  3.  148. 


PONTIF.CAL    AND    SYNODAL    INFALLIBILTY.  193 

united,  become  unerring.  A  council,  under  the  direction  and 
superintendence  of  the  pontiff,  is,  say  these  speculators,  raised 
above  mistake  on  subjects  of  faith  and  morality.1 

This  class  is  opposed  by  both  the  former.  The  system  con- 
tradicts the  assumption  of  pontifical  and  synodal  infallibility 
and  the  sentiments  of  the  French  and  Italian  schools.  Its  par- 
tizans  differ  not  only  from  the  Cisalpine  theologians,  Launoy, 
Gerson,  Almain,  Bossuet,  and  Du  Pin,  but  also  from  the 
Ultramontane  Doctors,  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius,  Carranza, 
and  Cajetan ;  and  are  exposed  to  the  fire  of  the  councils  of 
Florence  and  Lateran,  as  well  as  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil. 

This  party,  varying  from  the  French  and  Italian  schools, 
vary  from  their  own  theory  and  from  the  acknowledged  facts 
of  the  general  councils.  The  Romish  communion  admits 
the  authority  of  several  synods,  undistinguished  by  pontifical 
summons  and  ratification.  The  eight  oriental  councils,  as 
Launoy,  Du  Pin,  Gibert,  and  Caron,  have  clearly  shown,  were 
summoned  sometimes  against  the  pontifPs  will  and  always  with- 
out his  authority.  The  pope,  in  the  first,  second,  third,  and 
fifth  general  councils,  at  Nicaea,  Ephesus,  and  Constantinople, 
presided  neither  in  person  nor  by  representation;  while  the 
second,  Ephesian  synod,  says  Mirandula  having  a  lawful  call 
and  legantine  presence  of  the  Roman  bishop,  prostituted  its 
authority  nevertheless  to  the  subversion  of  the  faith.  Several 
general  councils  were  not  sanctioned,  but,  on  the  contrary,  re- 
sisted by  pontifical  power.  This  was  the  case  with  the  third 
canon  of  the  second  general  council,  which  declared  the  Byzan- 
tine next  in  rank  and  dignity  to  the  Roman  see.  The  twenty- 
eighth  canon  of  the  fourth  general  council  at  Chalcedon,  which 
raised  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch  to  an  equality  with  the 
Roman  pontiff,  met  withx  similar  opposition.  But  the  Chal- 
cedon ian  fathers  disregarded  the  Roman  bishop's  expostulations 
and  hostility.  The  fifth  general  council  decided  against 
Vigilius,  and,  in  addition,  complimented  his  holiness  with  an 
anathema  and  the  imputation  of  heresy.  The  sixth  ecumenical 
synod  condemned  Honorius,  and  its  acts  were  confirmed  by 
the  emperior  and  afterwards  by  Leo.  The  Basilian  assembly 
was  ridiculed  by  Leo  the  Tenth,  and  both  cursed  and  confirm- 
ed by  Eugenius.  His  holiness,  of  course,  between  malediction 
and  ratification,  showed  ample  attention  to  the  fathers  of  Basil. 
The  French  clergy  reject  the  councils  of  Lyons,  Florence, 
and  the  Lateran,  though  sanctioned  by  Innocent,  Eugenius, 
and  Leo.  The  Italian  clergy,  on  the  contrary,  and  the  par- 
tizans  of  pontifical  sovereignty,  have  proscribed  the  councils 

'  Mairabourg,  c.  6.     Bell.  IV.  2.     Caron,  c.  18.     Kenney.  398. 

13 


194  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil,  though  ratified  by  Alexander, 
Martin,  and  Nicholas. 

A  fourth  division  in  the  Romish  communion,  rejecting  the 
other  systems,  persist  in  attributing  exemption  from  error  only 
to  the  church  collective  or  dispersed,  embracing  the  general 
body  of  Christian  professors.  These,  disclaiming  pontifical 
and  synodal  infallibility  as  well  as  both  united,  patronize 
ecclesiastical  inerrability.  The  partizans  of  this  theory,  how- 
ever, are  few,  compared  with  the  other  factions.  The  system, 
notwithstanding,  can  boast  of  several  patrons  of  celebrity,  such 
as  Panormitan,  Mirandula,  and  Alliaco.1  Panormitan,  the 
famous  canonist,  was  one  of  the  advocates  of  this  theory. 
Councils,  according  to  this  author,  may  err  and  have  erred. 
The  universal  church,  he  adds,  *  comprehends  the  assembly  of 
all  the  faithful ;  and  this  is  the  church  which  is  vested  with 
infallibility.'  Mirandula  adopted  the  opinion  of  Panormitan. 
He  represents  the  second  council  of  Ephesus  as  general  and 
lawful,  which,  nevertheless,  'betrayed  the  faith.'  Alliaco's 
statement  on  this  head  in  the  council  of  Constance,  is  remark- 
able. He  observed  that  *  a  general  council,  according  to 
celebrated  doctors,  may  err,  not  only  in  fact,  but  also  in  right, 
and,  what  is  more,  in  the  faith.'  He  delivered  the  statement 
as  the  opinion  of  many.  The  declaration,  besides,  was  made 
in  an  assembly  containing  about  a  thousand  of  the  clergy,  and 
constituting  a  representation  of  the  whole  church,  with  general 
approbation  and  consent. 

This  party,  dissenting  from  pontifical  and  synodal  infallibility, 
differ  also  among  themselves  and  are  subdivided  into  two 
sections.  One  subdivision  places  illiability  to  error  in  the  clergy- 
dispersed  through  Christendom.  The  laity,  according  to  this 
speculation,  have  nothing  to  do  but  obey  the  clergy  and  be 
safe.  The  other  subdivision  reckons  the  laity  among  the 
participators  of  infallibility .  Clergy  and  laity,  according  to  this 
supposition,  form  one  sacred  society,  which,  though  dispersed 
through  Christendom,  and  subject  to  mistake  in  an  individual 
capacity,  is,  in  a  collective  sense,  raised  above  the  possibility 
of  error  in  the  faith. 

Such  is  the  diversity  of  opinions  in  the  Romish  communion, 
on  a  theory,  which  has  disgraced  man  and  insulted  human 
reason.  These  observations  shall  now  be  concluded  with  a 
digression  on  the  absurdity  and  on  the  impossibility  of  this 

irIV)ta  ecclesia  urrare  non  potest.  Panormitan,  a.  1,  N.  21.  P.  140.  Ecclesia 
Kniversalis  non  potest  errare.  Panormitan  de  Jud.  No.  4. 

Nihilominus  in  evereionem  fidei  agitatum.     Mirandula,  Th.  4. 

Secundum  magnos  Doctores,  generale  concilium  potest  errare,  non  solum  in 
focto,  Bed  etiam  in  jure,  et  quod  majus  est,  in  fide.  Hard.  2.  201.  Lenfant,  1.  172. 


ABSURDITY   OP   ECCLESIASTICAL    INFALLIBILITY.          195 

infallibility.  Its  absurdity  may  be  shown  from  the  intellectual 
weakness  of  man,  and  the  moral  deformity  which  has  disfigured 
the  Roman  pontiffs,  the  general  councils,  and  the  papal 
communion. 

The  intellectual  weakness  of  man  shows,  in  the  clearest  light, 
the  absurdity  of  the  claim.  Human  reason,  weak  in  its  opera- 
tions and  deceived  by  passion,  selfishness,  ignorance,  and  pre- 
possession, is  open  to  the  inroads  of  error.  Facts  testify  its 
fallibility.  The  annals  of  the  world  proclaim,  in  loud  and 
unequivocal  accents,  the  certainty  of  this  humbling  truth. 
The  history  of  Romanism,  and  its  diversity  of  opinions  not- 
withstanding its  boasted  unity,  teach  the  same  fact.  The  man 
who  first  claimed  or  afterwards  assumed  the  superhuman  at- 
tribute, must  have  possessed  an  impregnable  effrontery.  Lia- 
bility to  error,  indeed,  with  respect  to  each  individual  in 
ordinary  situations,  is  universally  admitted.  But  a  whole  is 
equal  to  its  parts.  Fallible  individuals,  therefore,  though 
united  in  one  convention  or  society,  can  never  form  an  infallible 
council  or  an  infallible  church. 

The  absurdity  of  this  arrogant  claim  may  be  shown  from  the 
moral  deformity,  which,  from  age  to  age,  has  disfigured  the 
Roman  pontiffs,  the  general  councils,  and  the  Papal  communion. 
The  moral  character  of  the  popes  proclaims  a  loud  negation 
against  their  infallibility.  Many  of  these  hierarchs  carried 
miscreancy  to  an  unenvied  perfection,  and  excelled,  in  this 
respect,  aU  men  recorded  in  the  annals  of  time.  A  John,  a 
Benedict,  and  an  Alexander  seem  to  have  been  born  to  show 
how  far  human  nature  could  proceed  in  degeneracy,  and,  in 
this  department,  outshine  a  Nero,  a  Domitian,  and  a  Caligula. 
Several  popes  in  the  tenth  century  owed  their  dignity  to 
Marozia  and  Theodora,  two  celebrated  courtezans,  who  raised 
.heir  gallants  to  the  pontifical  throne  and  vested  them  with 
pontifical  infallibility.1  Fifty  of  these  viceroys  of  heaven, 
according  to  Genebrard,  degenerated,  for  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  from  the  integrity  of  their  ancestors  and  were 
apostatical  rather  than  apostolical.  Genebrard,  Platina,  Stella, 
and  even  Baronius,  call  them  monsters,  portends,  thieves, 
robbers,  assassins,  magicians,  murderers,  barbarians,  and 
perjurers.  No  less  than  seventeen  of  God's  vicars-general 
were  guilty  of  perjury.  Papal  ambition,  usurpation,  perse- 
cution, domination,  excommunications,  interdicts,  and  deposition 
of  kings  have  filled  the  earth  with  war  and  desolation. 

1  Intruderentur  in  sedem  Petri  eorum  amasii  Pseudo-Pontifices.  Baron.  912. 
VIII.  Spon.  900.  I.  Genebrard,  IV. 

On  ne  voyoit  alors  plus  des  Papes,  mais  des  monatres.  Baronius  ecrit  qu'  alors 
Rome  etoit  sans  Pape.  Giannon,  VII.  5.  An.  Bccl.  345. 

13* 


196  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

The  general  councils,  like  the  Roman  pontiffs,  were  a  stigma 
on  religion  and  man.  Many  of  these  conventions,  in  point  of 
respectability,  were  inferior  to  a  modern  cock-fight  or  bull-baiting. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  is  a  Roman  saint,  has  described  these 
scenes  with  the  pencil  of  truth  and  with  the  hand  of  a  master. 
I  never,  says  the  Grecian  bishop,  saw  a  synod  which  had  a 
happy  termination.  These  conventions,  instead  of  diminishing, 
uniformly  augment  the  evil  which  they  were  intended  to  remedy. 
Passion,  jealousy,  envy,  prepossession,  and  the  ambition  of 
victory,  prevail  and  surpass  all  description.  Zeal  is  actuated 
rather  by  malignancy  to  the  criminal  than  aversion  to  the  crime. 
He  compares  the  dissension  and  wrangling  exhibited  in  the 
councils,  to  the  quarrels  of  geese  and  cranes,  gabbling  and 
contending  in  confusion,  and  represents  such  disputation  and 
vain  jangling  as  calculated  to  demoralize  the  spectator,  rather 
than  to  correct  or  reform.1  This  portrait,  which  is  taken  from 
life,  exhibits,  in  graphic  delineation  and  in  true  colours,  the 
genuine  ieatures  of  all  the  general,  infallible,  apostolic,  holy 
Roman  councils. 

The  generals  synods  of  Constantinople,  Nicaea,  Lyons, 
Constance,  and  Basil  are,  in  a  particular  manner,  worthy  of 
observation.  These  conventions  were  composed  of  the  lowest 
rabble,  and  patronized  the  vilest  abominations.  The  Byzantine 
assembly,  which  was  the  second  general  council,  has  been 
described  by  Nazianzen.  This  convention  the  saint  character- 
izes as  '  a  cabal  of  wretches  fit  for  the  house  of  correction ; 
fellows  newly  taken  from  the  plough,  the  spade,  the  oar,  and 
the  army.'  Such  is  the  Roman  saint's  sketch  of  a  holy, 
apostolic,  unerring  council.2 

The  second  Nicene  council  approved  of  perjury  and  fornica- 
tion. The  unerring  synod,  in  loud  acclamation,  approved  of  a 
disgusting  and  filthy  tale,  taken  from  the  *  spiritual  meadow  7 
and  sanctioning  these  sins.  A  monk,  according  to  the  story, 
had  been  haunted  with  the  spirit  of  fornication  from  early  life 
till  hoary  age.  The  lascivious  propensity,  which  is  all  that 
could  be  meant  by  the  demon  of  sensuality,  had  seized  the 
solitary  in  the  fervor  of  youth,  and  continued  its  temptations 
even  in  the  decline  of  years.  One  day,  when  the  spirit,  or 
more  probably  the  flesh  had  made  an  extraordinary  attact  on 
the  anchoret,  he  begged  the  foul  fiend  to  depart,  as  he  was 
now  arrived  at  the  years  of  longevity,  when  such  allurements, 

1  X^veov  jf  yspavwv  axptt'a  [tapvofiEvtov* 

EV0'  f ptj,  £ v8a  1*060$.     Gregory  2.  82.     Carm.  X.     Ep.  56.     Du  Pin,  1.  658. 

2  Alii  ab  aratris  venerant  adusti  a  sole :  alii  a  ligone  vel  bident  totum  diem  non 
quiescente :  alii  remos  exercitusve  reliquorant,  redolentes  adhuc  sentinam  vel  corpua 

KEdatum  cicatricibus  habentes : Flagriones,  et  pistrinis,  digui.    Greg.  Quer 

Ep.  Labb.  2.  1158.     Du  Pin,  1.  259. 


IMPOSSIBILITY    OF   INFALLIBILITY.  197 

through  attendant  debility,  should  cease.  The  devil,  appearing 
in  his  proper  form,  promised  a  cessation  of  arms,  if  the  hermit 
would  swear  to  tell  no  person  what  he  was  going  to  say.1  The 
monk,  without  hesitation,  obeyed  the  devil,  and  bound  himself 
by  oath  to  secrecy.  The  devil  administered  and  the  monk 
swore.  He  swore  by  the  Most  High  never  to  divulge  what 
Belial  would  tell.  The  solitary,  it  appears,  was  sufficiently 
complaisant  with  Belzebub,  who,  in  return,  promised  to 
withdraw  his  temptations,  if  the  monk  would  quit  worshipping 
a  statute  of  Lady  Mary  carrying  her  son  in  her  arms. 

The  tempted,  it  seems,  did  not  reject  the  temptation  with 
becoming  resolution.  He  requested  time  for  consideration ; 
and  next  day,  notwithstanding  his  oath,  discovered  all  to  the 
Abbot  Theodorus,  who  lived  in  Pharan.  The  holy  Abbot  indeed 
called  the  oath  a  delusion  ;  but  notwithstanding  his  sanctity, 
approved  of  the  confession,  and,  in  consequence  of  the  perjury. 
The  devil,  perhaps,  in  the  popish  divinity,  is  a  heretic,  which 
would  warrant  the  violation  of  faith  with  his  infernal  majesty. 
The  Abbot's  approbation,  however,  some  may  think,  was  a 
sufficient  stretch  of  politeness  in  the  holy  Theodorus  and  not 
very  flattering  to  veracity.  The  following  is  as  little  flattering  to 
chastity.  '  You  should  rather  visit  all  the  brothels  in  the  city,' 
said  the  holy  abbot  to  the  holy  monk,  *  than  omit  worshipping 
Immanuel  and  his  mother  in  their  images.' 2  Theodorus  was 
an  excellent  casuist,  and  knew  how  to  solve  a  case  of  conscience. 
Satan  afterward  appeared  to  the  monk,  accused  him  of  perjury, 
and  pronounced  His  doom  at  the  day  of  judgment.  The  devil 
seems  to  have  felt  a  greater  horror  of  perjury  than  the  monk; 
and  preached  better  morality  than  Theodorus  or  the  holy 
general  council.  The  anchoret,  in  his  reply  to  the  fiend,  admitted 
that  he  had  perjured  himself;  but  declared  that  he  had  not 
abjured  his  God. 

Such  is  the  tale  as  related  in  the  sacred  synod  from  '  the 
spiritual  meadow.'  The  holy  fathers,  with  unanimous  consent, 
approved  ;  and  by  their  approbation,  showed  the  refinement  of 
their  taste  and  sanctioned  perjury  and  debauchery.  John,  the 
oriental  vicar,  declared  perjury  better  than  the  destruction  of 
images.  John  must  have  been  an  excellent  moral  philosopher 
and  Christian  divine,  and  a  worthy  member  of  an  unerring 
council.  The  monk's  oath,  however,  did  not  imply  the 
alternative  of  forswearing  himself  or  renouncing  image  worship. 

1  Jura  mihi,  quod  ea  quae  tibi  dicam  nemini  significabis,  et  non  amplius  tecum 
pugnabo.     Crabb.  2.  520.     Bin.  5.  642, 

2  Expedit  tibi  potius,  ut  non  dimittas  in  civitate  ista  Jupinar,  in  quod  non  introeas, 
quam  ut  recuses  adorare  Dominum  et  Deum  nostrum  lesum  Christum,  cum  propria 
matre  sua  in  imagine.     Labb.  8.  902. 


198  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

He  might  have  kept  the  solemn  obligation,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  enjoyed  his  orthodox  idolatry.  He  was  only  sworn  to 
secrecy  with  respect  to  the  demon's  communication.  The 
engagement  was  solemn.  The  officer  indeed,  who  administered 
the  oath,  was  the  devil.  But  the  solitary  swore  by  the  Highest ; 
and  the  validity  of  an  oath,  all  agree,  arises  not  from  the 
administrator,  but  from  the  deity  in  whose  name  it  is  taken. 
His  discovery  to  Theodorus,  therefore,  though  applauded  by  the 
infallible  synod,  was  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  ninth  precept  of 
the  moral  law. 

The  approval  of  debauchery  was,  in  this  case,  accompanied 
with  that  of  perjury.  Theodorus'  sermon,  recommended  by  the 
sacred  synod,  encouraged  the  monk,  rather  than  dismiss  his  idol, 
which  in  all  probability  was  a  parcel  of  fusty  baggage,  to  launch 
into  the  troubled  waters  of  prostitution,  and,  with  crowded 
canvass  and  swelling  sail,  to  sweep  the  wide  ocean  of  licentious- 
ness. The  picture  of  sensuality,  presented  in  the  abbot's  holy 
advice,  seems  to  have  tickled  the  fancy  and  feeling  of  the  holy 
fathers,  who  appear  to  have  been  actuated  with  the  same  spirit 
in  the  council  as  the  monk  in  the  cell.  The  old  sensualists 
gloated  over  the  scene  of  voluptousness,  which  the  Theodorian 
theology  had  presented  to  the  view.  The  aged  libertines, 
enamoured  of  the  tale,  caused  it  to  be  repeated  in  the  fifth 
session,  for  the  laudable  purpose  of  once  more  glutting  their 
libidinous  appetite,  and  prompting  their  imagination  with  its 
filthiness. 

The  Caroline  books,  the  production  of  the  French  king  and 
prelacy,  deprecated  the  story  as  an  unprecedented  absurdity 
and  a  pestilential  evil.  Du  Pin,  actuated  with  the  sentiments 
of  a  man  and  a  Christian,  condemns  the  synod,  deprecates  the 
whole  transaction,  and  even  refuses  to  translate  the  abbot  of 
Pharan's  holy  homily.  The  infallible  council  sanctioned  a 
breach  of  the  seventh  commandment,  at  least  in  comparison 
with  the  abandonment  of  emblematic  adoration.  The  Nicaaans, 
nevertheless,  boasted  of  their  inspiration.  The  sacred  synod, 
amid  all  its  atrocity,  pretended  to  the  immediate  influence  of 
heaven.  The  divine  afflatus,  forsooth,  passed  through  these 
skins  of  pollution,  and  made  the  consecrated  ruffians  the 
channels  of  supernatural  communications  to  man.  The  source 
of  their  inspiration,  if  the  holy  fathers  felt  such  an  impulse,  is 
easy  to  tell.  The  spirit  which  influenced  the  secreted  monk 
seems  to  have  been  busy  with  the  worthy  bishops,  and  to  have 
stimulated  their  imaginations  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  dirty  story, 
and  the  approbation  of  its  foul  criminality. 

The  holy  infallible  council  of  Lyons  has  been  delineated  in  a 
portrait  taken  from  life,  by  Matthew  Paris,  a  cotemporary 


IMPOSSIBILITY   OF  INFALLIBILITY.  199 

nistorian.  Pope  Innocent  retiring  from  the  general  council  of 
Lyons  in  which  he  had  presided,  Cardinal  Hugo  made  a 
farewell  speech  for  his  holiness  and  the  whole  court  to  the 
citizens,  who  had  assembled  on  the  occasion  to  witness  his 
infallibility's  departure.  *  Friends'  said  the  orator,  'we  have 
effected  a  work  of  great  utility  and  charity,  in  this  city.  When 
we  came  to  Lyons  we  found  three  or  four  brothels  in  it,  and  we 
have  left  at  our  departure  only  one.  But  this  extends  without 
interruption,  from  the  eastern  to  the  western  gate  of  the  city.' 1 
The  clergy,  who  should  be  patterns  of  purity,  seem  on  this 
occasion,  when  attending  an  unerring  council,  to  have  been  the 
agents  of  demoralization  through  the  city  in  which  they  assembled. 
The  cardinal,  speaking  in  the  name  of  his  holiness,  gloried  in  his 
shame,  and  talked  of  the  abomination  of  himself  and  his 
companions  in  a  strain  of  railery  and  unblushing  effrontery. 

The  constantine  council  was  characterized  by  Baptiza,  one  of 
its  own  members.  His  protrait  is  frightful.  The  clergy,  he 
declared,  *  were  nearly  all  under  the  power  of  the  devil,  and 
mocked  all  religion  by  external  devotion  and  Pharisean  hypo- 
crisy. The  prelacy,  actuated  only  by  malice,  iniquity,  pride, 
vanity,  ignorance,  lasciviousness,  avarice,  pomp,  simony,  and 
dissimulation,  had  exterminated  Catholicism  and  extinguished 
piety.'2 

The  character  of  the  holy  bishops,  indeed,  appear  from  their 
company.  More  than  seven  hundred  PUBLIC  WOMEN,  according 
to  Dachery's  account,  attended  the  sacred  synod.  The  Vienna 
manuscript  reckons  the  number  of  these  female  attendants, 
whom  it  calls  vagrant  prostitutes,  at  1500.8  This  was  a  fair 
supply  for  the  thousand  holy  fathers  who  constituted  the  Con- 
stantian  assembly.  These  courtesans,  says  Brays,  were,  in  ap- 
pearance, intended  to  exercise  the  chastity  of  the  clergy.  Their 
company,  no  doubt,  contribute  t  to  the  entertainment  of  the 
learned  divines  and  introduced  great  variety  into  their  amuse- 
ments, j 

The  council  of  Basil  taught  the  theory  of  filthiness,  as  that  of 
Constance  had  exhibited  the  practice.  Carlerius,  the  champion 
of  Catholicism  in  the  Basilian  assembly  against  Nicholas  the 
Bohemian  heretic,  advocated  the  propriety  of  tolerating  stews  in 
a  city.4  This  hopeful  and  holy  thesis  the  hero  of  the  faith  sup- 

1  Tria  vel  quatuor  prostibula  invenhmis.      Unura  solum  relinquimus.      Verum 
ipsum  durat  continatum  ab  oriental!  porta  civitatis  usque  ad  occidentalem.     M. 
Paris.  792. 

2  Presque  tout  le  clerge  est  sous  la  puissance  du  diable.     Dans  les  prelats,  il  n'y 
a  que  malice,  iniquit6,  negligence,  ignorance,  vanite,  orgueil,  avarice,  simonie,  las- 
civete,  pompe,  hypocrisie.     Baptiza,  in  Lenfan.  2.  95. 

3  Sept  cens  dix  huit  femmes  publiques.     Bruy.  4.  39. — XVC  meretrices  vagabun- 
dae.     Labb.  16.  1435,  1436. 

4Haec  pestis  maneat  iu  urbibus.     Canisius,  4.  457 


» 
200  THE    VARIATIONS    OF   POPERY  . 

ported  by  the  authority  of  the  sainted  Augustine  and  Aquinas. 
Remove  prostitutes,  says  Augustine  as  cited  by  Carlerius,  'and 
you  will  disturb  all  things  with  licentiousness.'  Human  govern- 
ment, says  Aquinas,  quoted  by  the  same  orator, '  should  imitate 
the  divine.  But  God,  according  to  the  saint,  permits  some 
evils  in  the  universe,  and  therefore,  so  should  man.'1  His 
saintship's  logic  is  nearly  as  good  as  his  morality.  Simple 
fornication,  therefore,  concludes  Carlerius,  is  to  be  permitted 
to  avoid  a  greater  evil. 

This  severe  moralist,  however,  would  exclude  these  courtezans 
from  the  interior  of  the  city,  and  confine  them  to  the  suburbs, 
to  serve  as  sewers  to  carry  away  the  filth.  He  would  even,  in 
his  rigour,  forbid  these  professional  ladies  the  use  of  robes,  orna- 
ments, silver,  gold,  jewels,  fringes,  lace,  flounces,  and  furbelows. 
This  useful  and  pure  speculation,  the  sacred  synod  heard  with 
silent  approbation.  The  holy  fathers,  in  their  superior  sense 
and  sanctity,  could  easily  perceive  the  utility  and  reasonable- 
ness of  the  scheme,  and  could  not,  in  politeness,  object  to  the 
arguments  which  their  champion  wielded  with  such  triumphant 
effect  against  the  advocate  of  heresy. 

The  councils  of  Nicea,  Vienna,  and  the  Lateran,  patronized 
the  hateful  and  degrading  doctrine  of  materialism.  Angels  and 
souls,  the  Nica3ans  represented  as  corporeal.  The  angels  of 
heaven  and  the  souls  of  men,  if  the  Nica3an  doctors  are  to  be 
credited,  possess  bodies,  though  of  a  refined,  thin,  subtile,  and 
attenuated  description.  These  angelical  and  mental  forms,  the 
learned  metaphysicians  admitted,  were  composed  of  a  substance 
less  gross  indeed  than  the  human  flesh  or  nerve,  and  less  firm 
than  the  human  bone  or  sinew ;  but  nevertheless  material, 
tangible  and  visible.  The  council  of  Vienna  improved  on  that 
of  Nicaea.  The  holy  infallible  fathers  of  Vienna  declared  the 
soul  not  only  of  the  same  substance,  but  also  essentially  and  in 
itself  of  the  true  and  perfect  form  of  the  body.  The  rational  and 
intellectual  mind,  therefore,  in  this  system,  possesses  a  material 
and  corporeal  shape,  limbs,  features,  feet  and  hands,  and  has 
circumference,  diameter,  length,  breadth,  and  thickness.  This 
definition  the  sacred  synod  issued,  to  teach  all  men  the  true 
faith.  This  doctrine,  according  to  the  same  authority,  is 
Catholicism  and  the  contrary  is  heresy.  The  Lateran  council, 
in  its  eighth  session,  follow  the  Viennese  definition,  and  decreed 
that  the  human  spirit,  truly,  essentially,  and  in  itself,  exists  in 
the  form  of  the  human  frame.2  Three  holy  universal  councils, 

1  Aufer  meretricibus  de  rebus  humanis,  turbaveris  omnia  libidinibus.  Labb.  17 
986.  Deus  pennittit  aliqua  mala  fieri  in  universe.  Aquinas,  II.  10.  XI. 

9  Catholica  ecclesia  sic  sentit  esse  quosdam  intelligibiles,  sed  non  omnino  corporis 
expertes  et  invisibiles,  verum  tenui  corpore  praditos.  In  loco  existunt  et  circtim- 


IMMORALITY    OF    THE    ROMISH   CHURCH.  201 

m  this  manner,  patronized  the  materialism  which  was  afterward 
obtruded  on  the  world  by  a  Priestley,  a  Voltaire  and  a  Hume. 

The  Romish  communion  was  as  demoralized  as  the  Roman 
pontiffs  or  the  general  councils.  During  the  six  hundred  years 
that  preceded  the  reformation,  the  papal  communion,  clergy 
and  laity,  were  in  the  account  of  their  own  historians,  sunk  into 
the  lowest  depths  of  vice  and  abomination.  A  rapid  view  of 
this  period,  from  the  tenth  till  the  sixteenth  century,  sketched 
by  the  warmest  partizans  of  the  papacy,  will  show  the  truth  and 
justice  of  this  imputation. 

The  tenth  century  has  been  portrayed  by  the  pencil  of 
Sabellicus,  Stella,  Baronius,  Giannone,  and  Du  Pin.  Stupor 
and  forgetfulness  of  morals  invaded  the  minds  of  men.  All 
virtue  fled  from  the  pontiff  and  the  people.  This  whole  period 
was  characterized  by  obduracy  and  an  inundation  of  overflow- 
ing wickedness.  The  Romish  church  was  filthy  and  deformed, 
and  the  abomination  of  desolation  was  erected  in  the  temple  of 
God.  Holiness  had  escaped  from  the  world,  and  God  seemed 
to  have  forgotten  his  church,  which  was  overwhelmed  in  a 
chaos  of  impiety.1 

The  eleventh  century  has  been  described  by  Gulielmus,  Paris, 
Spondanus  and  Baronius.  Gulielmus,  portrays  the  scene  in 
dark  and  frightful  colours.  'Faith  was  not  found  on  earth. 
All  flesh  had  corrupted  their  way.  Justice,  equity,  virtue, 
sobriety,  and  the  fear  of  God  perished,  and  were  succeeded  by 
violence,  fraud,  stratagem,  malevolence,  circumvention,  luxury, 
drunkenness,  and*  debauchery.  All  kinds  of  abomination  and 
incest  were  committed  without  shame  or  punishment.'  The 
colours  used  by  Paris  are  equally  black  and  shocking.  '  The 
nobility,'  says  the  English  historian,  '  were  the  slaves  of  gluttony 
and  sensuality.  All,  im  common,  passed  their  days  and  nights 
in  protracted  drunkenness.  Men  provoked  surfeit  by  voracious- 
ness, and  vomit  by  ebriety.'  The  outlines  of  Spondanus  and 
Baronius  correspond  with  those  of  Gulielmus  and  Paris.  '  Piety 
and  holiness,'  these  historians  confess,  '  had  fled  from  the  earth, 
whilst  irregularity  and  iniquity  among  all,  and,  in  an  especial 
manner,  among  the  clergy  every  where  reigned.  The  sacra- 
ments, in  many  parts  of  Christendom,  ceased  to  be  dispensed. 

ferentiam  habent.  Nemo,  vel  angelos,  vel  animos  dixerit  incorporeos.  Carranza, 
478.  Labb.  8.  1446. 

Anima  rationalis  non  sit  forma  corporis  human!  per  se  et  essentialiter,  tanquam 
haereticus  sit  censendus.     Carranza,  560.     Du  Pin,  2.  545. 

Ilia  humani  corporis  existat.    Carranza,  604.     Labb.  19.  812.     Bin.  8.  928. 

Sttipor  et  amentia  quaedam  oblivioque  morum  invaserant  hominum  animos 
Sabellicus,  II.  Quis  non  putarit  Deum  oblitum  ecclesiae  suae.  Spon.  908.  III. 
Contingent  abominationem  desolationis  in  templo.  Baron,  900.  I.  L.  eglise  etoit 
dans  un  etat  pitoyable,  de  figuree  panics  plus  grands  desordres,  et  plongee  dans  un 
chaos  d'impietes.  Giannon,VII.  5.  Du  Fin,  2,  156.  Bruy.  2.  316. 


£02  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

The  few  men  of  piety,  from  the  prospect  of  atrocity,  thought 
that  the  reign  of  Antichrist  had  commenced,  and  that  the  world 
was  hastening  to  its  end.' * 

The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  ages  were  similar  in  their  morals, 
and  have  been  described  by  Morlaix,  Honorius,  and  Bernard. 
According  to  the  two  former,  '  Piety  and  religion  seemed  to 
bid  adieu  to  man ;  and  for  these  were  substituted  treachery, 
fraud,  impurity,  rapine,  schism,  quarrels,  war  and  assassination. 
The  throne  of  the  beast  seemed  to  be  fixed  among  the  clergy, 
who  neglected  God,  stained  the  priesthood  with  impurity, 
demoralized  the  people  with  their  hypocrisy,  denied  the  Lord 
by  their  works,  and  rejected  the  revelation  which  God  gave  for 
the  salvation  of  man.' 2 

But  Bernard's  sketch  of  this  period  is  the  fullest  and  most 
hideous.  The  saint,  addressing  the  clergy,  and  witnessing  what 
he  saw,  loads  the  canvass  with  the  darkest  colours.  'The  clergy,' 
said  the  monk  of  Clairvaux,  '  are  called  pastors,  but  in  reality 
are  plunderers,  who,  unsatisfied  with  the  fleece,  thirst  for  the 
blood  of  the  flock  ;  and  merit  the  appellation  not  of  shepherds 
but  of  traitors,  who  do  not  feed  but  slay  and  devour  the  sheep. 
The  Saviour's  reproach,  scourges,  nails,  spear,  and  cross,  all 
these,  his  ministers,  who  serve  Antichrist,  melt  in  the  furnace 
of  covetousness  and  expend  on  the  acquisition  of  filthy  gain, 
differing  from  Judas  only  in  the  magnitude  of  the  sum  for  which 
they  sell  their  master.  The  degenerate  ecclesiastics,  prompted 
by  avarice,  dare  for  gain,  even  to  barter  assassination,  adultery, 
incest,  fornication,  sacrilege,  and  perjury.  Their  extortions, 
they  lavish  on  pomp  and  folly.  These  patrons  of  humility 
appear  at  home  amid  royal  furniture,  and  exhibit  abroad  in 
meretricious  finery  and  theatrical  dress.  Sumptuous  food, 
splendid  cups,  overflowing  cellars,  drunken  banquets,  accom- 
panied with  the  lyre  and  the  violin,  are  the  means  by  which 
these  ministers  of  the  cross  evince  their  self  denial  and 
indifference  to  the  world.' 8 

1  Fides  deficerit,  et  Domini  timor  erat  de  midio  sublatus.  Perierat  de  rebua, 
justitia  et  sequitate  subacta,  violentia  dominibatur  in  populis.  Fraus,  dolus,  et  cir- 
cumventio  late  involverant  universa.  Fides  non  inveniebatur  super  terrain.  Omnis 
caro  corruperat  viam  suam.  Bell.  Sacr.  1.  8. 

Optimates  gulae  et  veneri  servientes,  in  cubiculis,  et  inter  uxorios  complexus. 
Potabatur  ab  omnibus^in  commune,  et  tarn  dies  quam  noctes,  in  hoc  studio  pro- 
ductae  sunt.  In  cibis  urgebant  crapulam,  in  potibus  vomicam  irritabant.  Paris  5, 
1001,  Spon.  1001.  II  Bruy.  2.  316. 

3  La  fraude,  I'impuret6,  les  rapines,  les  schismes,  les  querelles,  les  guerres,  lea 
trahisons,  les  homicides  sont  en  vogue.  Adieu  la  piete  et  la  religion.  Morlaix,  in 
Bruy.  2.  547. 

Tourne  toi  vers  le  clerge,  tu  y  verra  la  tente  de  la  Bete.  Ils  negligent  le  service 
Divin.  Ils  souillent  le  sacerdoce  par  leurs  impuretez,  seduisent  le  peuple  par 
leurs  hypocrisie,  renient  Dieu  par  leurs  ceuvres.  Honor,  in  Bruy.  2.  547. 

3  Dicemini  pastores,  cum  sitig  raptores.      Sititis  enim  sanguinem.      Non  snnt 


IMMORALITY    OF    THE    ROMISH    CHURCH.  203 

Bernard's  picture  of  the  priesthood  is  certainly  not  compli- 
mentary ;  and  his  character  of  the  laity  is  of  the  same  unflatter- 
ing description.  According  to  this  saint,  '  the  putrid  contagion 
had,  in  his  day,  crept  through  the  whole  body  of  the  church, 
and  the  malady  was  inward  and  could  not  be  healed.  The 
actions  of  the  prelacy  in  secret  were  too  gross  for  expression,' 
and  the  saint,  therefore,  left  the  midnight  miscreancy  in  its 
native  and  congenial  darkness.1 

The  moral  traits  of  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries 
have  been  delineated  by  the  bold  but  faithful  pens  of  Alliaco, 
Petrarch,  Mariana,  JSgidius,  Mirandula,  and  Fordun.2  Alliaco's 
description  is  very  striking  and  significant.  'The  church,' 
said  the  cardinal,  '  is  come  to  such  a  state,  that  it  is  worthy  of 
being  governed  only  by  reprobates.'  Petrarch,  without  any 
hesitation,  calls  Rome,  '  Babylon,  the  Great  Whore,  the  school 
of  error,  and  the  temple  of  heresy.'  The  court  of  Avignon, 
he  pronounced  '  the  sink  and  sewer  of  all  vice,  and  the  house 
of  hardship  and  misery  ; '  while  he  lamented,  in  general,  '  the 
derelection  of  all  piety,  charity,  faith,  shame,  sanctity,  integrity, 
justice,  honesty,  candor,  humanity,  and  fear  of  God.' 

Every  enormity,  according  to  Mariana,  '  had  passed  into  a 
custom  and  law,  and  was  committed  without  fear.  Shame  and 
modesty  were  banished,  while,  by  a  monstrous  irregularity,  the 
most  dreadful  outrages,  perfidy,  and  treason  were  better 
recompensed  than  the  brightest  virtue.  The  wickedness  of 
the  pontiff  descended  to  the  people.'3 

The  account  of  jEgidius  is  equally  striking.  '  Licentiousness 
reigned.  All  kinds  of  atrocity,  like  an  impetuous*  torrent, 
inundated  the  church,  and  like  a  pestilence,  infected  nearly  all 
its  members.  Irregularity,  ignorance,  ambition,  unchastity, 
libertinism,  and  impurity  triumphed ;  while  the  plains  of  Italy 
were  drenched  in  blood  and  strewed  with  the  dead.  Violence, 
rapine,  adultery,  incest,  and  all  the  pestilence  of  villany, 
confounded  all  things  sacred  and  profane.' 4 

Eastores,  sed  traditores.      Ministri  Christi  sunt,  et  serviunt  Antichristo.     Vendunt 
omicidia,  adulteria,  fornicationes,  sacrilegia,  perjuria.     Bernard,  1725 — 1728. 

1  Serpit  hodie  putrida  tabes  per  omne  corpus  ecclesiae.      Intestina  et  insanabilis 
est  plaga  ecclesiae.  Quae  enim  in  occulto  faint  ab  episcopis,  turpe  est  dicere.    Ber- 
nard, 1728. 

2  Ad  hunc  statum  venisse  ecclesiam,  ut  non  sit  digna  regi,  nisi  per  reprobos. 
Alliaco  in  Hard.  1.  424.     Lenfan.  2.  276. 


pude 
in  Bruy.  3.  470. 

3  Les  plus  grands  crimes  etoient  presque  poussez  en  contume  et  en  loi.      On  lea 
comrnetoit  sans  crainte.     La  hont6  et  la  pudeur  etoient,  bannies,  et  par  un  deregle- 

\  ment  monstrueux,  les  plus  noirs  attentats,  les  perfidies,  les  trahisons  etoint  mieux 
recompensees  que  ne  1'  etoient  les  vertus  les  plus  eclatantes.     Marian.  5.  718. 

4  Vidimus  vim,  rapiuas,  adulteria,  incestus,  omnem  denique  scelerum  pestem  ita 


204  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

Mirandula's  picture,  to  the  following  effect,  is  equally  hideo as. 
*  Men  abandoned  religion,  shame,  modesty,  and  justice.  Piety 
degenerated  into  superstition.  All  ranks  sinned  with  open 
effrontery.  Virtue  was  often  accounted  vice,  and  vice  honored 
for  virtue.  The  sacred  temples  were  governed  by  pimps  and 
Ganymedes,  stained  with  the  sin  of  Sodom.  Parents  encouraged 
their  sons  in  the  vile  pollution.  The  retreats,  formerly  sacred 
to  unspotted  virgins,  were  converted  into  brothels,  and  the 
haunts  of  obscenity  and  abomination.  Money,  intended  for 
sacred  purposes,  was  lavished  on  the  filthiest  pleasures,  while 
the  perpetrators  of  the  defilement,  instead  of  being  ashamed, 
gloried  in  the  profanation.'  Fordun,  in  his  sketch  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  has  loaded  the  canvass  with  the  same  dark 
colors.1  'Inferiors,'  say  the  historians,  'devoted  themselves 
to  malediction  and  perjury,  to  rioting  and  drunkenness,  to 
fornication  and  adultery,  and  to  other  shocking  crimes.  Su- 
periors studied,  night  and  day,  to  oppress  their  underlings  in 
every  possible  manner,  to  seize  their  possessions,  and  to  devise 
new  imposts  and  exactions.' 

The  sixteenth  century  has  been  depicted  by  Antonius.  He 
addressed  the  fathers  and  senators  assembled  at  Trent,  while 
he  delineated,  in  such  black  colors,  the  hideous  protrait  of  the 
passing  day.  The  orator,  on  the  occasion,  stated,  while  he 
lamented,  the  general  '  depravation  of  manners,  the  turpitude 
of  vice,  the  contempt  of  the  sacraments,  the  solicitude  of  earthly 
things,  and  the  forgetfulness  of  celestial  good  and  of  all  Chris- 
tian piety.  Each  succeeding  day  witnessed  a  deterioration  in 
devotion,  divine  grace,  Christian  virtue,  and  other  spiritual 
attainments.  No  age  had  ever  seen  more  tribunals  and  less 
justice  ;  more  senators  and  less  care  of  the  commonwealth ; 
more  indigence  and  less  charity ;  or  greater  riches  and  fewer 
alms.  This  neglect  of  justice  and  alms  was  attended  with 
public  adultery,  rape,  rapine,  exaction,  taxation,  oppression, 
drunkenness,  gluttony,  pomp  of  dress,  superfluity  of  expense, 
contamination  of  luxury,  and  effusion  of  Christian  blood. 
Women  displayed  lasciviousness  and  effrontery ;  youth,  dis- 

Bacra  profanaque  miscere  omnia.     Labb.  19.  670.     Bruy.  4.  365.     Mariana,  5.  770. 

lSacras  aedes  et  templa lenonibus  et  catamitis  commissa.  Virginibus  olim  dicata, 
plerisque  in  urbibus  septa  in  meretricias  fomices  et  obscoena  latibula  fuisse  conversa. 
Spurcissirnis  voluptatibus  et  impendeant,  et  impendisse  glorientur.  Mirandula,  in 
Rosco.  6.  68.  La  plupart  des  prelats  n'ont  presque  plus  ni  religion,  ni  pudeur,  ni 
modestie.  La  justice  est  changes  en  brigandage,  la  piete  a  presque  degenere  en 
superstition  ;  du  vice  on  fait  une  vertu.  Mirand.  in  Bruy.  4.  397. 

Inferiores  jam  vacant  maledictionibus  et  perjuriis,  comessionibus  et  ebrietatibus, 
fornicationibus  et  adulteriis,  ac  aliis  horrenis  peccatis.  Superiores  vero  student, 
nocte  et  die,  circumvenire  subditos  suos  omnibus  modis  quibus  possunt,  ut  auferant 
eorum  bona  et  indue  ant  novas  subtilitates,  adinventiones,  et  exactiones.  Fordun. 
XIV.  39. 


IMMORALITY  OF  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH.        205 

order  and  insubordination  ;  and  age,  impiety,  and  folly  :  while 
never  had  there,  in  all  ranks,  appeared  less  honor,  virtue, 
modesty,  and  fear  of  God,  or  more  licentiousness,  abuse,  and 
exorbitance  of  sensuality.  The  pastor  was  without  vigilance, 
the  preacher  without  works,  the  law  without  subjection,  the 
people  without  obedience,  the  monk  without  devotion,  the  rich 
without  humility,  the  female  without  compassion,  the  young 
without  discipline,  and  every  Christian  without  religion.  The 
wicked  were  exalted  and  the  good  depressed.  Virtue  was 
despised,  and  vice,  in  its  stead,  reigned  in  the  world.  Usury, 
fraud,  adultery,  fornication,  enmity,  revenge,  and  blasphemy, 
enjoyed  distinction ;  while  worldly  and  perverse  men,  being 
encouraged  and  congratulated  in  their  wickedness,  boasted  of 
their  villany.1 

The  conclusion  from  these  statements,  has  been  drawn  by 
Gerson,  Madruccio,  Cervino,  Pole,  and  Monte.  Gerson,  in  the 
council  of  Constance,  represented,  '  as  ridiculous,  the  preten- 
sions of  a  man  to  bind  and  to  loose  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  who 
is  guilty  of  simony,  falsehood,  exaction,  pride,  and  fornication,' 
and,  in  one  word,  worse  than  a  demon.  A  person  of  such  a 
character,  according  to  this  authority,  is  unfit  to  exercise  disci- 
pline :  and  much  less  therefore  entitled  to  the  attribute  of 
infallibility.  '  The  Holy  Spirit,'  said  Cardinal  Mandruccio  in 
the  council  of  Trent, '  will  not  dwell  in  men  who  are  vessels  of 
impurity  ;  and  from  such,  therefore,  no  right  judgment  can  be 
expected  on  questions  of  faith.'  His  speech,  which  was  pre- 
meditated, met  with  no  opposition  from  any  in  the  assembly. 

1  Depravatos  hominum  mores,  vitiorum  omnium  turpitudinem,  sacramentorum 
despectus,  solam  curam  terrenorum  et  caelestium  bonorum ;  totiusque  Christianee 
pietatis  oblivionem  consideremus.  In  Divinis  gratiis,  in  Christianis  virtutibus,  et 
devotioue,  et  caeteris  spiritualibuls  bonis,  in  dies  magis  semper  deficere,  et  ad  deteri- 
ora  prolabi  videantur.  Nam  ubi  unquam  tot  fuerunt  in  saeculo,  tribunalia,  et  minor 
justitia  ?  Ubi  unquam  tot  senatores  et  magistrates,  et  minor  cura  reipublicae  ?  Ubi 
major  pauperum  multitude,  et  minor  divitum  pietas  ?  et  ubi  majores  divitiae,  et 
pauciores  fuerunt  eleemosynae  ?  Labb.  20.  1217 — 1219. 

Taceo  publica  adulteria,  stupra,  rapinas.  Praetereo  tantam  Christianae  sanguinia 
effusionem,  indebitas  exactiones,  vectagalia,  gratis  supuraddita,  et  innumeras  hujus 
cernodi  oppressiones.  Prsemitto  etiam  superbam  vestium  pompam,  supervacaneos 
ulira  statut  dicentium  sumptus,  ebrietates,  crapulas,  et  enormes  luxuriae  foeditates, 
quales  a  soeculo  non  fuere.  Quia  nunquam  foemineus  sexus  lascivior  et  inverecun- 
dior,  nunquam  juventus  effraenatior  et  indisciplinatior ;  et  nunquam  indevotior  et 
insipientior  senectus,  atque,  in  summa,  nunquam  minor  fuit  in  omnibus  Dei  timor, 
honestas,  virtus,  et  modestia,  et  nunquam  major  in  omni  statu,  carnis  Hbertas, 
abusio,  et  exorbitantia.  Nam  qua3  major  in  mundo,  exorbitantia,  et  abusio  excog 
itari  potest  quam  pastor  sine  vigilautia,  prredicator  sine  operibus,  judex  sine  aequi- 
tate,  leges  sine  observantia,  populus  sine  obedientia,  religiosus  sine  devotione,  dives 
sine  verecundia,  mulier  sine  misericordia,  juvenis  sine  disciplina,  senex  sine  pruden- 
tia,  et  Christianus  quisque  sine  religione.  Boni  opprimuntur,  et  impii  exaltantur 
virtutes  despiciimtur,  et  vitia,  pro  eis,  in  mundo  regnant.  Usurae,  fraudes,  adulte- 
ria,  fornicationes,  inimicitiae,  vindictae,  blasphemiae,  et  id  genus  reliqua,  nota  sunt; 
in  quibus  mundani  et  perversi  homines,  non  solum  excusantur,  sed  laetamur,  cuna 
malefecerint,  et  exultant  in  rebus  pessimis.  Labb.  20.  1219— J  223. 


206  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Cervino,  Pole,  and  Monte,  presiding  in  the  same  synod  with 
legantine  authority,  declared  that  the  clergy,  if  they  persevered 
in  sin,  « would  in  vain  call  on  the  Holy  Spirit.'1  The  idea, 
indeed,  that  such  popes,  councils,  or  church  should  be  influ- 
enced by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  exempted  by  this  means  from 
error,  is  an  outrageous  insult  on  all  common  sense. 

No  valid  reason  could  be  given  why  God,  in  his  goodness  to 
man,  should  confer  doctrinal  and  withhold  moral  infallibility. 
Impeccability  in  duty  is  as  valuable  in  itself,  and  as  necessary 
for  the  perfection  of  the  human  character,  as  inerrability  in  faith. 
Holiness,  in  scriptural  language,  is  enjoined  on  man  with  as 
unmitigated  rigour  as  truth.  Criminality,  in  manners,  is,  in 
Revelation,  represented  as  equally  hateful  to  God  and  detri- 
mental to  man,  as  mistake  in  judgment.  The  Deity  is  "of 
purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity  ;"  and  "  without  holiness  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord."2  Moral  apostacy  is,  indeed,  in  many 
cases,  more  culpable  than  doctrinal  error.  The  one  is  sometimes 
invincible ;  while  the  other  is  always  voluntary.  But  no 
individual  or  society  is  gifted  with  impeccability,  or  has  reason 
to  claim  infallibility.  God  does  not  keep  man,  either  in  a 
personal  or  collective  capacity,  from  error  in  practice  ;  and  only 
presumption,  therefore,  will  conclude,  that  he  keeps  any  from 
misapprehension  in  belief  or  theory. 

The  moral  impossibility  of  infallibility,  without  individual 
inspiration  and  the  special  interposition  of  heaven  in  each  case, 
is  as  clear  as  its  improbability  or  absurdity.  God,  by  his  extra- 
ordinary interference  extended  to  each  person,  could,  no  doubt, 
preserve  ah1  men  from  error,  and  convey  with  undeviating  cer- 
tainty, a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  His  power  of  bestowing  this 
perfection  appeared  iA  the  Jewish  prophets  and  Christian 
apostles.  These  communicated  the  will  of  God  to  men,  under 
tfie  Old  and  New  Testament,  without  any  liability  to  mistake. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  in  these  instances,  acted  in  a  supernatural 
manner  on  each  individual's  mind ;  which,  in  consequence, 
became  the  certain  channel  of  Divine  truth,  to  the  Jewish 
theocracy,  and  the  Christian  commonwealth. 

But  infallibility,  though  it  may  be  conferred  in  an  extraordi- 
nary or  miraculous  way  by  God  to  man,  cannot  be  transferred 
by  ordinary  or  common  means  from  man  to  man.  God  could 
inspire  men  with  a  certain  knowledge  of  his  will ;  but  these 

1  N'est  ce  pas  une  chose  bien  ridicule,  qu'  un  homme  simoniaqtie,  avare,  men- 
teur,  exacteur,  fornicateur,  superbe,  fastueux,  pire  en  un  mot  qu'  un  Demon,  pre- 
tende  avoir  la  puissance  de  Her  et  de  delier  dans  le  ciel  et  sur  la  terre.  Gerson  in 
Lenfan.  2.  288.  Le  Saint  Esprit  ne  pouvoit  habiter  en  nos  vases,  s'ils  n'etoient 
purifez.  Mandruccio,  in  Paol.  1.  227.  Frustra  invocamus  Spiritum  Sanctum. 
Labb.  20.  13. 

'Habak.  i.  13.     Heb.xii.  14. 


MORAL    IMPOSSIBILITY    OF    INFALLIBILITY.  207 

again  could  not  inspire  others  with  a  certainty  of  understanding 
their  oracles  without  any  possibility  of  misapprehension.  A 
person  who  is  himself  uninspired  may  misinterpret  the  dictates 
of  inspiration.  This  liability  to  misapprehension  was  exempli- 
fied in  both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  revelations.  Many  Jews 
misunderstood  the  Jewish  prophets.  The  misapplication  of 
scriptural  truth,  at  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  was  so  gross  that 
they  rejected  his  person  and  authority.  The  Christian  apostles, 
prior  to  the  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  mistook  on  several  occasions, 
the  clear  language  of  Immanuel ;  and  these  apostolical  heralds 
of  the  gospel,  though  afterwards  guided  into  "  all  truth,"  have 
been  misapprehended  in  many  instances  by  the  various  denom- 
inations of  Christendom. 

Papal  bulls  and  synodal  canons,  like  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian revelations,  are  liable  to  misconception  by  uninspired  or 
fallible  interpreters.  Suppose  infallibility  to  reside  in  the  Pope. 
Suppose  the  pontiff,  through  divine  illumination,  to  deliver  the 
truth  with  unerring  certainty,  and,  contrary  to  custom,  with  the 
utmost  perspicuity.  Admit  that  the  pontifical  bulls,  spoken 
from  the  chair,  are  the  fruits  of  divine  influence  and  the  decla- 
rations of  heaven.  Each  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  notwithstand- 
ing, even  according  to  the  popish  system,  is  fallible.  The 
patrons  of  infallibility,  in  a  collective  capacity,  grant  that  the 
several  individuals,  taken  separately,  may  err.  Some  of  the 
clergy,  therefore,  may  misunderstand  and  therefore  misinterpret 
the  Romish  bulls  to  the  people.  But  suppose  each  of  the  clergy, 
in  his  separate  capacity,  to  understand  and  explain  the  pontiff's 
communications  with  the  utmost  precision  and  with  certain 
exemption  from  error ;  the  laity,  nevertheless,  if  uninspired  or 
fallible,  may  misapprehend  the  explanation  of  the  clergy,  and, 
in  consequence,  embrace  heresy.  The  papal  instructions, 
therefore,  though  true  in  themselves,  may  be  perverted  in  their 
transmission  through  a  fallible  medium  to  the  people. 

Or  suppose  infallibility  to  reside  in  a  council,  and  the  synodal 
canons  to  declare  the  truth  with  the  utmost  certainty  and 
without  any  possibility  of  mistake.  The  canons,  when  circula- 
ted through  Christendom,  are  liable  to  misapprehension  from 
some  of  the  clergy  or  laity,  if  each  is  not  inspired  or  infallible 
in  his  interpretation.  An  individual,  who,  according  to  popish 
principles,  is  not  unerring,  cannot  be  certain  he  has  interpreted 
any  synodal  decision  in  its  proper  and  right  sense.  A  clergyman, 
if  he  mistake  the  meaning,  will  lead  his  flock  astray.  A 
layman,  if  fallible  in  apprehension,  may  misconceive  the  signi- 
fication of  any  instruction  issued  either  by  synodal  or  papal 
authority.  Each  individual,  in  short,  must  be  an  infallible  juags 


208  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY 

of  controversy ,  or,  from  misapprehension,  he  maybe  deceived, 
and  there  is  an  end  to  the  infallibility  of  the  church. 

Many  instances  of  the  clergy  as  well  as  of  the  laity,  mistaking 
the  meaning  of  synodal  definitions,  might  be  adduced.  Exam- 
ples of  this  kind  are  afforded  by  the  councils  of  Chalcedon  and 
Trent,  two  of  the  most  celebrated  synods  in  the  annals  of  the 
church.  The  council  of  Chalcedon,  according  to  the  general 
explanation,  taught  the  belief  of  only  two  substances  or  natures, 
the  human  and  the  divine,  in  the  Son  of  God.  The  fifteenth 
council  of  Toledo,  notwithstanding,  enumerated  three  substances 
in  Immanuel,  and  quoted  the  Chalcedonian  definition  for  its 
authority.1  The  Spanish  clergy,  therefore,  and  through  them 
the  Spanish  people,  put  a  wrong  construction,  according  to  the 
usual  interpretation,  on  the  general  council  of  Chalcedon. 

Contradictory  explanations  were  also  imposed  on  some  of  the 
Trentine  canons,  the  last  infallible  assembly  that  blessed  the 
world  with  its  orthodoxy  or  cursed  it  with  its  nonsense.  Soto, 
a  Dominican,  and  Vega,  a  Franciscan,  interpreted  the  decisions 
of  the  sixth  session  on  original  sin,  grace,  and  justification, 
according  to  their  several  peculiar  systems.  Soto  published 
three  books  on  nature  and  grace,  and  Vega  fifteen  books  on  the 
same  subject.  Each  of  these  productions  was  printed  in  1548, 
and  intended  as  a  commentary  on  the  canons  of  Trent.  Their 
varying  and  often  contradictory  statements  are  both  founded, 
the  authors. pretend,  on  the  definitions  of  the  universal  council. 
This  contrariety  of  opinion  was  not  confined  to  Soto  and  Vega. 
The  Trentine  fathers  were  divided  into  several  factions  on  the 
exposition  of  their  own  decisions.2 

The  same  synod  affords  another  example  of  the  same  kind. 
The  council,  in  the  sixth  session,  declared  that  ministerial 
intention,  actual  or  virtual,  is  necessary  to  confer  validity  on  a 
sacrament.  This  sentence,  Contarinus  opposed  in  the  synod 
with  warmth  ;  and  a  year  after,  notwithstanding  the  perspicuity 
of  the  synodal  definition,  wrote  a  book  to  show  that  the  Tren- 
tine assembly  was  of  his  opinion,  and  that  their  canon  should 
be  understood  in  his  sense.3 

Pontifical  as  well  as  synodal  definitions  have  been  misunder- 
stood and  subjected  to  contradictory  interpretations.  The  bull 
Unigenitus,  issued  by  Clement  the  Eleventh,  affords  an  instance 

1  Ecce  tres  in  una  Christ!  persona  substantias,  secundum  Chalcedonense  con 
cilium.  Labb.  8.  13. 

3  Ces  deux  theologiens  non  seulement  difFerassent  de  sentiment  dans  presque 
tous  les  articles,  mais  que  dans  plusieurs  meme,  ils  enseignassent  une  doctrine  evi- 
elemment  contraire.  Paolo,  1.  430.  Du  Pin,  3.  446.  Mem.  Sur  Predestin  172. 
Les  autres  en  ont  par!6  avec  la  meme  diversite.  Paolo.  1.  340. 

3  Un  ecrit  pour  prouver  que  le  concile  avoit  etc  de  eon  avis.  Paolo,  1.  389. 
Morery,  2.  207. 


MORAL    IMPOSSIBILITY    OF    INFALLIBILITY.  209 

of  this  kind.  The  French  and  Italians,  the  Jesuits  and  the 
Jansenists  explained  the  papal  constitution  according  to  their 
several  humours  and  prepossessions.  The  accommodating 
document,  according  to  some,  was  pointed  against  the  Thomists. 
but,  according  to  others,  against  the  abettors  of  Calvinism- 
Many  maintained  its  obscurity,  or  candidly  admitted  their 
inability  to  understand  this  puzzle.  The  astonished  pontiff",  in 
the  meantime,  wondered  at  the  people's  blindness  or  perversity. 
Men,  he  was  satisfied,  must  have  lost  their  reason  or  shut  their 
eyes,  to  become  insensible  to  the  dazzling  light,  which,  clear  as 
noonday,  radiated  from  the  bright  emanation  of  his  brain.1 
Popes  and  councils,  in  this  manner,  may  be  misrepresented,  and 
their  definitions,  even  if  true  in  themselves  as  the  dictates  of 
heaven,  are  no  infallible  security  against  error  in  men  who  are 
liable  to  mistake  their  meaning.  Each  of  the  clergy  and  laity 
would  require  preternatural  aid,  to  understand  their  instructions 
with  certainty.  Every  individual,  subject  to  error,  may  annex 
heterodox  siginfications  to  the  dictations  of  the  sovereign 
pontiffs  and  general  councils,  as  well  as  to  the  inspired  volume. 
Very  different  opinions,  accordingly,  have  been  tortured  from 
the  synodical  canons  and  the  sacred  penmen.  Sound  doctrine, 
both  written  and  verbal,  may  be  perverted  by  erroneous 
interpretation.  Water,  though  clear  in  the  fountain,  may 
contract  impurity  as  it  flows  through  muddy  channels  to  the 
reservoir.  Truth  in  like  manner,  may  be  misrepresented  01 
misunderstood  in  its  transmission,  in  various  ways  and  through 
diversified  mediums,  to  the  minds  of  men.  The  friend  of 
protestantism,  because  fallible,  may  misinterpret  revelation,  and 
therefore  is  liable  to  mistake.  The  professor  of  Romanism, 
who  is  also  fallible,  may,  it  is  plain,  misunderstand  the  church 
and  therefore  fall  into  error.  Infallibility,  therefore,  or  the 
preservation  of  all,  clergy  and  laity,  from  error,  would  require 
a  continued  miracle  and  personal  inspiration,  extended  to  every 
age  and  to  every  individual  in  the  Christian  commonwealth. 

1  La  Bulle  sonffre  les  explanations  les  plus  opposes.     Apol.  2.  264. 

A  1'egard  de  la  bulle  de  Clement  XI.  les  uns  1'entendent  d'  une  fa^on  et  les  autrea 
de  P  autre.  On  la  tire  comme  on  peut  pour  la  faire  plier  a  sea  sentimens.  etc 
Apol.  1.  131,  1323 

Une  bulle  qui  lui  paroissoit  plus  claire  que  la  jour.     Apol.  1.  259 

14 


CHAPTER  VI. 


DEPOSITION    OF    KINGS. 

f*ENCH  SYSTEM — ITALIAN  SYSTEM — ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  COM- 
MONWEALTH—PONTIFICAL ROYALTY ATTEMPTS  AT  DEPOSITION  OF  KINGS- 
GREGORY  AND  LEO ZACHARY  AND  CHILDERIC CONTINENTAL  DEPOSITIONS—- 

GREGORY,    CLEMENT,    BONIFACE,    AND    JULIUS     DETHRONE     HENRY,     LEWIS,    PHILIP, 

AND    LEWIS BRITISH    DEPOSITIONS ADRIAN     TRANSFERS     IRELAND     TO     HENRY 

INNOCENT,     PAUL,     AND     PIUS,     PRONOUNCE     SENTENCE     OF     DEGRADATION    AGAINST 

JOHN,  HENRY,  AND    ELIZABETH SYNODAL    DEPOSITIONS COUNCILS    OF    THE    LATK- 

RAN,     LYONS,    VIENNA,     PISA,    CONSTANCE,    BASIL,    LATERAN,    AND    TRENT — MODERK 
OPINIONS EFFECTS    OF    THE    REFORMATION. 

THE  French  and  Italian  schools  vary  on  the  civil  power  of  the 
Roman  pontiff,  as  well  as  on  his  spiritual  authority.  The 
French  deny  his  political  or  regal  jurisdiction,  except,  perhaps 
in  the  ecclesiastical  states  of  Italy,  over  which,  in  consequence 
of  Pepin's  donation,  he  has  obtained  dominion.  Pontifical 
deposition  of  kings  and  domination  through  the  nations  of 
Christendom,  the  Cisalpines  to  a  man  hold  in  detestation.1 

This  system  has  been  supported  with  great  learning  and 
ability  by  the  French  theologians  ;  such  as  Gerson,  Launoy, 
Almain,  Marca,  Maimbourg,  Bossuet,  and  Du  Pin.  The 
Parisian  parliament  and  university  distinguished  this  view  of 
the  subject  by  their  persevering  and  powerful  advocacy.  The 
Parisian  senate,  in  1610,  proscribed  Bellarmine's  Treatise 
against  Barclay,  on  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope.  The 
whole  French  clergy,  in  1682,  assembled  at  Paris,  and  recog- 
nized this  as  the  belief  of  the  Gallican  church ;  and  their 
decision  has  been  embraced  by  the  moderate  and  rational 
friends  of  Romanism  through  the  several  nations  of  Chris- 
tendom.2 

The  Italians,  and  all  who  abet  their  slavish  system,  counte- 
nance the  pope's  political  power,  even  beyond  the  papal  regalia, 
and  support  his  assumed  authority  over  emperors  and  kings. 

1  Bell.  i.  81 1.     Maimb.  260.     Du  Pin,  433. 

sGibert,  2.  513.     Maimb.  c.  30.     Anglad.  156.     Thuan.  5.  241.     Grotty,  70. 
Ita  habet  declaratio  cleri  Gallicani,  Anno  1682,  quam  sequuntur  plures  exteri 
5ens  2,  164. 


ITALIAN    SYSTEM.  211 

The  Roman  hierarch,  according  to  this  theory,  presides  by  divine 
right  in  the  state  as  well  as  in  the  church.  He  possesses  autho- 
rity to  transfer  kingdoms,  dethrone  sovereigns  for  heresy,  and 
absolve  their  subjects  from  the  oath  of  fidelity.1 

The  partizans  of  the  Italian  school  are  divided  into  two  fac- 
tions. One  party  allows  the  pope  no  direct  power  over  the 
state  or  over  kings.  He  is  not,  according  to  this  theory,  the 
lord  of  the  whole  world.  He  possesses  no  jurisdiction  over  the 
realms  of  paganism  or  infidelity.  But  he  is  vested  with  an 
indirect  power  over  the  temporal  monarchs  and  the  political 
institutions  of  Christendom.  The  supreme  pontiff  can,  for  the 
good  of  the  church  and  the  salvation  of  souls,  enact  and  repeal 
civil  laws,  erect  kingdoms,  transfer  thrones,  depose  emperors 
and  kings,  and  rescind,  by  divine  right  and  spiritual  authority, 
the  obligations  of  vassals  to  their  sovereigns.  This,  Bellarmine 
represents  as  the  common  opinion  of  all  the  friends  of  Roman- 
ism. This  system  has  been  advocated  by  Baronius,  Bellarmine, 
Binius,  Carranza,  Perron,  Turrecrema,  Pighius,  Walden,  San- 
derus,  Cajetan,  and  Vittoria.  Many  pontiffs,  also,  since  the 
days  of  Gregory  the  Seventh,  as  well  as  several  provincial  and 
general  councils,  have  patronized  the  same  absurdity.2 

A  second  faction  vest  the  pontiff  with  still  ampler  prerogatives 
and  greater  power.  These  characterize  the  pope  as  the  lord  of 
the  whole  world,  who  presides,  with  divine  and  uncontrolled 
authority,  over  all  the  nations  of  Christendom  and  infidelity. 
His  power,  according  to  this  system,  is  direct  in  civil  as  well 
as  ecclesiastical  affairs.  He  wields,  at  once,  the  temporal  and 
spiritual  swords.  He  is  clothed  with  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
sovereignty,  which  places  him  above  all  earthly  monarchs, 
whom  he  is  authorised,  p  his  unerring  judgment  and  unlimited 
power,  to  degrade  from  their  dignity  and  to  remove  from  their 
dominions.  This  scheme  has,  with  brazen  effrontery,  been 
maintained  by  many  doctors  and  pontiffs,  and,  in  general,  by 
the  Canonists  and  Jesuits.  The  last  council  of  the  Lateran, 
also,  in  some  of  its  declarations  and  enactments,  seem  to  have 
favoured  the  same  monstrous  theory.3 

Christendom,  on  this  topic,  has  witnessed  four  variations,  and 
fluctuated  through  as  many  diversified  periods.  One  period 
embraced  a  protracted  lapse  of  about  700  years,  from  the  era  of 
our  redemption  till  the  accession  of  Gregory  the  Second.  Chris- 

'  Bell.  v.  1.     Daniel,  4.  402.     Maimb.  260.     Dens,  2.  164. 

2  Bellarmin,  V.  1.     Maimbourg,  c.  26.     Caron,  31. 

3  Bell.  1.  820.     Du  Pin,  2,  523.     Labb.  19,  726.     Bin.  9.  112. 

Omnem  vim  regiam  omnium que  rerum,  quae  in  terris  snnt,  potestatem  et  domi 
nium  datum  esse  Romano  Pontinci  jure  Divino.  Barclay,  7. 

Canonist®  dicunt,  papam  directe  dominiutn  temporale  totius  orbis  a  Christo 
iccepisse.  Barclay,  95. 

14* 


212  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

tians,  during  this  time,  all  professed  and  practised  unconditional 
loyalty.  A  period  of  dissension  and  rivalry,  between  the  mitie 
and  the  diadem,  between  royalty  and  the  papacy,  then  suc- 
ceeded, continued  nearly  four  hundred  years,  from  Gregory  the 
Second  till  Gregory  the  Seventh,  and  terminated  in  the  defeat 
of  regal  sovereignty  and  the  triumph  of  pontifical  domination. 
The  supremacy  of  the  popedom  and  the  debasement  of  kingly 
majesty,  according  to  Lessius,  an  ultra  advocate  of  Romanism, 
next  ensued,  and  continued  for  a  period  of  near  five  hundred 
years  after  Gregory,  tih1  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation,  when 
the  meridian  splendour  of  papal  glory  began  to  decline.  The 
fourth  period,  from  the  rise  of  Protestantism  till  the  present 
day,  comprehends  about  three  hundred  years,  during  which  the 
pontifical  pretensions  have  gradually  receded,  and  the  regai 
claims  have  revived.  The  first  and  third  periods  were  distin- 
guished for  their  unanimity :  the  former  for  the  monarchy  of 
kings,  and  the  latter  for  the  sovereignty  of  pontiffs.  The 
second  and  fourth  were  days  of  contention  between  the  church 
and  the  state,  between  the  authority  of  popes,  and  the  power  of 
kings. 

The  church,  for  seven  hundred  years  after  its  establishment, 
was  distinguished  for  its  loyalty  and  submission  to  the  civil 
magistracy.  The  Christian  commonwealth  for  more  than  three 
hundred  years,  from  Jesus  to  Constantine,  existed  ii}  poverty 
and  without  power  or  ostentation.  Joseph  and  Jesus  were 
humble  artizans  of  Nazareth.  The  Son  of  Man,  who  came  to 
pour  contempt  on  human  glory,  had  not  where  to  lay  his  head. 
The  original  heralds  of  the  gospel,  apostles,  evangelists,  and 
pastors,  were,  like  their  master,  void  of  worldly  rank  or  influ- 
ence. The  voluntary  oblations  of  the  faithful  were  chiefly 
divided  among  this  humble  ministry,  and  the  poor,  the  sick,  the 
distressed,  the  aged,  the  stranger,  the  prisoner,  the  orphan,  and 
the  widow.  The  Christian  society,  indeed,  during  the  reign  of 
the  heathen  emperors,  might,  by  concealment  and  connivance, 
possess  some  landed  property.  But  these  possessions  were 


pating  in  the  general  indigence,  and  destitute  of  civil  authority 
or  worldly  power,  was  subject  to  persecution  and  obscurity. 
The  situation  of  the  church,  at  the  accession  of  Constantine, 

lGiannon,  II.  8.     Maimb.  c.  27.     John  xvii.  16.     Luke  zii.  14.     Rom.  xiii.  1. 

II  y  avoit  plus  de  sept  cent  ans,  que  la  seule  puissance  spirituelle  des  clefs  faisoit 
reverer  la  majeste  du  saint  siege.  Vertot,  1. 

Jusque  au  regne  du  Grand  Constantin,  les  successeurs  de  St.  Pierre  n'en  avoient 
herit6  que  ses  chaines  et  des  persecutions,  souvent  terminees  par  le  martyrs. 
Vertot,  2. 


ORIGINAL  STATE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  COMMONWEALTH.       213 

underwent  an  important  change.  The  emperor,  by  the  edict  of 
Milan,  gave  legal  security  to  the  temporal  possessions  of  the 
Christian  republic.  The  Christians  recovered  their  land  forfeited 
under  Dioclesian,  and  obtained  a  title  to  all  the  property  which 
they  had  enjoyed  by  the  connivance  of  the  Roman  magistracy. 
A  second  edict,  in  321,  granted  a  liberty  of  bequeathing  pro- 
perty to  the  church  ;  while  the  emperor  showed  an  example  of 
liberality,  and  lavished  wealth  on  the  clergy  with  an  unsparing 
hand. 

The  imperial  munificence  attracted  many  imitators,  whose 
donations,  during  life  and  especially  at  the  hour  of  death,  flowed 
into  the  ecclesiastical  treasury  in  copious  streams.  The  women, 
in  particular,  displayed  on  the  occasion  the  utmost  profusion, 
The  Roman  matrons  rivalled  each  other  in  this  pecuniary 
devotion.  The  clergy,  indeed,  in  this  respect,  prevailed  so 
much  with  female  credulity,  that  Valentinian  was  obliged  to 
enact  a  law,  forbidding  monks  or  ecclesiastics  to  accept  any 
donation  or  legacy  from  maids,  matrons,  orphans,  or  widows. 
Womanish  simplicity,  the  emperor  wished  to  prevent  from 
being  deluded  by  priestly  policy. 

The  northern  barbarians,  who,  had  overrun  the  Roman 
empire,  might  indeed,  be  less  enlightened ;  but  they  were  even 
more  lavish  in  their  generosity.  The  adoration  of  Hessus,  Odin, 
and  Terasius,  these  rough  warriors  left  in  the  fastnesses  and 
forests  of  the  north  ;  but  they  retained,  in  a  great  measure,  their 
barbarianism  and  superstition.  The  credulity  and  veneration 
of  these  hardy  veterans  for  the  hierarchy,  seemed  to  invite 
imposture.  Rapacious,  but  lavish ;  dissolute,  but  devotional, 
these  proselyted  sons  of  heathenism,  poured  torrents  of  wealth 
into  the  channels  of  the  church. 

The  Roman  Bishops,  from  Constantine  to  Pepin,  enjoyed  an 
3xuberance  of  this  liberality.  The  grandeur  and  opulence  of 
the  church  in  the  imperial  city,  in  a  few  years  after  Christianity 
obtained  a  legal  establishment,  became  truly  astonishing.  Am- 
mianus,  a  pagan,  an  impartial  and  a  contemporary  historian,  has 
described  the  pontiff's  affluence  and  ostentation.  The  hierarch 
enjoyed  the  stateliest  chariots,  the  gayest  attire,  and  the  finest 
entertainments.  He  surpassed  kings  in  splendour  and  magnifi- 
cence. His  luxury,  pride,  vanity,  and  sensuality  formed  a 
contrast  to  the  provincial  bishops,  who  approved  themselves  to 
the  eternal  God  by  their  temperance,  frugality,  simplicity, 
plainness,  and  modesty.1  Christianity,  at  this  time,  had  been 
established  by  law  only  about  fifty  years.  The  Roman  See,  in 

1  Ammianus,  XXVII,  3.     Thomasin,  III.  1.     Giannon,  IV.  12. 
Les  Papes,  depuis  1'  empii'e  du  Grand  Constantin,  avoi 
sideration  dans  Rome  et  dans  toute  1'  Italie.     Vertot,  10. 


214  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

that  period,  had  emerged  from  obscurity,  mounted  to  earthly 
grandeur,  and  obtained  afterwards  in  the  seventh  century,  an 
ample  patrimony  through  Italy,  France,  and  Africa. 

But  ambition  is  never  satisfied ;  and  his  infallibility,  sur- 
rounded with  wealth  and  grandeur,  affected  royalty,  and  aspired 
to  be  numbered  among  kings.  This  dignity  was  bestowed  on 
these  viceroys  of  heaven  by  the  French  monarchs  Pepin  and 
Carolus.  The  Lombards,  taking  advantage  of  the  seditions  in 
Italy,  occasioned  by  the  imperial  edicts  of  Leo  and  Constantine 
against  image-worship,  seized  the  Grecian  provinces  subject  to 
the  exarch  of  Ravenna.  Astolf,  king  of  Lombardy,  elated  with 
these  new  accessions  to  his  dominions,  formed  the  project  of 
subduing  the  Roman  city,  its  territory,  and  indeed  all  Italy. 
The  city  was  summoned  to  acknowledge  his  sovereignty,  and 
the  sword  of  destruction  was  unsheathed  to  exact  the  penalty  of 
disobedience.  The  Romans,  in  this  emergency,  solicited  the 
interposition  of  Pepin,  whose  hand,  in  war  or  in  friendship,  was 
never  lifted  in  vain.  Actuated  by  the  call  of  religion,  policy, 
gratitude,  and  glory,  the  French  monarch  mustered  an  army, 
scaled  the  Alps,  descended  on  the  plains  of  Italy,  marched  on 
the  capital,  defeated  the  enemy,  and  compelled  Astolf  in  754, 
in  a  solemn  treaty,  to  surrender  Ravenna,  Pentapolis,  and  the 
Roman  dukedom,  to  the  Roman  pontiff  and  his  sacerdotal 
successors.1 

Astolf,  however,  on  the  departure  of  Pepin,  retracted  his 
engagement.  Stephen  again  applied  to  Pepin;  and  personi- 
fying Peter  himself,  assured  the  French  king,  that  dead  in 
body,  he  was  alive  in  spirit,  and  summoned  the  monarch  to 
obey  the  founder  and  guardian  of  the  Roman  see.  The  virgin, 
the  angels,  the  saints,  the  martyrs,  and  all  the  host  of  heaven, 
if  credit  may  be  attached  to  his  holiness,  urged  the  request  and 
would  reward  the  obligation.  Victory  and  paradise,  he  prom- 
ised, would  crown  the  enterprise  ;  while  damnation  would  be 
the  penalty  of  suffering  his  tomb,  his  temple,  and  his  people, 
to  fall  into  the  possession  of  the  enemy.  These  arguments,  in 
the  eighth  century,  could  not  fail.  Pepin  again  crossed  the 
Alps,  and  obliged  Astolf  to  fulfil  the  violated  treaty.  Carolus, 
the  son  of  Pepin,  afterward  confirmed  the  grant  of  his  prede- 
cessor, consisting  of  Ravenna,  Pentapolis,  or  the  March  of 
Ancona,  and  the  Roman  dukedom  ;  and,  according  to  the 
general  opinion,  added  the  duchy  of  Spoleto,  completing,  by 
this  cession,  the  present  circle  of  the  ecclesiastical  states,  and 
forming  an  extensive  territory  in  the  midland  region  of  Italy.2 

1  Labb.  8.  368,  370.     Anastasius,  44.     Giannon,  V.  1.     Vertot,  30,  41 

2  Bruy  I.  562.     Giannon,  V.  4.  et  VI.  1.     Labb.  8.  376.     Vertot,  78. 

Si  vous  voulez  sauver  vos  4mes  et  vos  corps  du  feu  eternel,  vous  aurez  ensuite  la 
Tie  eternelle.  Vertot,  54. 


PONTIFICAL     ROYALTY 

This  splendid  donation  raised  the  pontiff  to  royalty.  The 
world,  for  the  first  time,  saw  a  bishop  vested  with  the  preroga- 
tives of  a  prince  and  ranked  among  the  sovereigns  of  the  earth. 
His  holiness  added  a  temporal  to  a  spiritual  kingdom.  The 
liierarch,  in  this  manner,  united  principality  to  priesthood,  the 
crown  to  the  mitre,  and  the  sceptre  to  the  keys.  The  vicegerent 
of  Jesus,  who  declared  his  kingdom  not  of  this  world  and  refused 
a  diadem,  grasped  with  avidity  at  regal  honors  and  temporal 
dominion.  Satan,  said  Passavan  with  equal  truth  and  severity, 
tendered  this  earth  and  all  its  glory  to  Immanuel ;  but  met  with 
a  peremptory  rejection.  The  Devil  afterward  made  the  same 
overture  to  the  pope,  who  accepted  the  offer  with  thanks,  and 
with  the  annexed  condition  of  worshipping  the  prince  of  dark- 
ness. The  observation  unites  all  the  keenness  of  sarcasm,  and 
the  energy  of  truth.1 

The  Roman  hierarchs,  however,  during  these  seven  revolving 
ages,  professed  unqualified  submission  to  the  Roman  emperors: 
and,  though  often  persecuted,  attempted  neither  anathemas  nor 
deposition.  Gelasius,  Gregory,  Agatho,  and  Leo,  manifested 
obedience  and  even  servility  to  the  imperial  authority.  The 
persecuting  emperors,  for  three  hundred  years  after  the  era  of 
redemption,  experienced  nothing  but  passive  obedience  from 
the  Christian  priesthood  and  people.  Liberius  and  Damasus 
launched  no  anathemas  against  the  Arian  Constantius  and 
Valens.  Felix  and  Gelasius  fulminated  no  excommunications 
against  Zeno,  who  discountenanced  Catholicism  and  favoured 
heresy.  Julian,  notwithstanding  his  apostacy ,  escaped  pontifical 
degradation.  Vitalian  even  honoured  Constans,  the  patron  of 
error,  who  banished  Martin  and  tortured  Maximus.  Gregory 
little  indeed  to  his  credit,  eulogized  Phocas,  the  assassin  of 
Mauricius  and  his  helpless  family.2  The  Gothic  kings,  not- 
withstanding their  stratagems  and  invasion  of  the  ecclesiastical 
patrimony,  reigned  without  molestation  in  Italy. 

The  second  period  of  papal  pretension,  which  entered  with 
Gregory  the  Second  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century, 
introduced  dissension  and  rivalry  between  the  Roman  emperors 
and  the  Roman  pontiffs,  which  lasted  above  three  hundred  years. 
The  Popes  advanced  to  the  deposition  of  kings  with  slow  and 
gradual,  but  firm  and  steady  steps.  Their  first  essay,  in  this 
hazardous  enterprise,  showed  their  usual  caution.  The  wary 
hierarchs,  began  the  career  of  ambition  by  using  their  spiritual 
authority,  in  the  encouragement  of  subjects  to  rebel  against  their 
sovereigns.  The  prudent  chiefs  stimulated  others  to  the  depo- 

1  Du  Pin,  279,  468.     Caron.  114.     Maimbourg,  c.  29. 

8  Les  Papes  obeissoient  alors  &  des  rois,  ou  infidelea  ou  Aliens      Vertot,  3 


216  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

sition  of  civil  governors  ;  but  attempted  nothing,  in  this  perilous 
project,  in  their  own  name.  Specimens  of  this  kind,  were 
afforded  by  Gregory  and  Zachary  in  France  and  Italy. 

Gregory  encouraged  the  Italians  to  rebel  against  Leo.  The 
eastern  emperor,  in  726,  issued  an  edict  in  favour  of  Iconoclasm. 
The  Roman  pontiff,  in  return,  proceeded,  according  to  the  Greek 
historians  Theophanes,  Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  Nicephorus,  and 
Glycas,  to  excommunicate  his  Grecian  majesty.  The  Greeks 
have  been  followed  by  the  Transalpine  Latins,  Baronius,  Bellar 
mine,  Sigonius,  Perron,  and  Allatius.  Gregory's  excommuni- 
cation of  Leo,  however,  has,  with  reason,  been  rejected  by  the 
critics  of  the  French  school,  Launoy,  Alexander,  Marca,  Bossuet, 
Giannon,  Caron,  and  Du  Pin.  The  event  is  unmentioned  or 
opposed  by  Gregory,  John  Damascen,  Paulus,  Diaconius, 
Anastasius,  and  other  Latin  historians.  The  hierarch,  however, 
fomented  a  revolt  amongst  the  Romans,  Venetians,  Lombards, 
and  other  Italians.  Subjects,  his  holiness  taught,  could  not 
in  conscience  contribute  taxes  to  a  heretical  prince.  The  people 
in  consequence,  rose  in  arms  for  the  protection  of  the  pontiff 
and  the  faith,  disclaimed  all  fealty  to  the  emperor,  and  refused 
to  pay  tribute.1  Italy,  in  this  manner,  was,  by  papal  treason 
severed  from  the  eastern  emperor. 

Gregory's  success  encouraged  Zachary.  Childeric,  the  French 
king,  was,  in  751,  deposed  for  inefficiency,  and  Pepin,  mayor  of 
the  palace,  crowned  for  his  activity  and  achievements  ;  and 
through  the  casuistry  of  Zachary,  who  occupied  the  Roman  see, 
which  was  esteemed,  in  the  eighth  century,  the  seminary  of  all 
virtue  and  sanctity.  The  ultra  partizans  of  Romanism  main- 
tain that  the  diadem  was  transferred  from  Childeric  to  Pepin 
by  the  pontiff's  supremacy,  and  not  by  his  casuistry.  Eginhard, 
indeed,  says  Childeric  was  dethroned  by  the  command  of 
Zachary,  and  Pepin  crowned  by  his  authority.2  Similar  ex- 
pressions have  been  used  by  Regino,  Aimon,  Marian,  Sigebert, 
Otho,  JEmilius,  and  Ado.  Launoy,  Caron,  and  Du  Pin  think 
that  this  phraseology  signifies  only  the  papal  advice  and  recom- 
mendation. The  Roman  pontiff's  authority,  however,  influ- 
enced the  French  nation,  and  decided  the  destiny  of  the  French 
king,  who  was  hurled  from  the  throne  and  immured  in  a  monas- 
try.  The  Pope,  also,  dissolved  the  oath  of  fidelity,  which  Pepin 
and  the  French  nation  had  taken  to  Childeric,  and  which,  for 
the  gratification  of  ambition,  they  had  violated.3 

1 11s  ne  pouvoient  en  conscience  payer  des  tributes  a  un  prince  heretique.  Ver« 
tot,  13.  Giannon,  II.  4.  Bruy.  I  520.  Labb.  8.  163.  Mezeray,  1.  198.  Giannon, 
V.  1.  Oaron,  32.  Du  Pin,  508. 

8  Per  auctoritatem  Roman!  Pontificis.  Eginhard,  in  Carol. — Papa  mandavit 
Pipino.  Regino,  II.  Mezeray,  I.  209.  Aimon,  IV.  61. 

3Zacharias  omnes  Francigenas  a  juramento  fidelitatis  absolvit.  Caron,  c.  IX. 
Du  Pin,  513 


ATTEMPTS    OF    POPES    TO   DEPOSE    KINGS.  217 

The  third  period,  in  the  annals  of  papal  deposition  of  empe- 
rors and  kings,  began  with  Gregory  the  Seventh,  and  lasted  Atill 
the  declension  of  the  papacy  at  the  commencement  of  the  re- 
formation. This  protracted  series  of  about  five  hundred  years 
was  marked  by  pontifical  sovereignty  and  regal  debasement. 
During  this  time,  the  Roman  vicegerents  of  heaven,  shining  in 
meridian  splendour  and  appearing  in  all  their  glory,  continued, 
according  to  the  dictates  of  interest  or  passion,  to  dethrone 
sovereigns,  transfer  kingdoms,  and  control  the  governments  of 
the  world.  Each  vicar^general  of  God  in  succession,  with 
hardly  any  exception,  proceeded,  on  his  accession  to  the  chair 
of  the  Galilean  fisherman,  to  hurl  his  anathemas,  issue  his 
interdicts,  and  degrade  kings.  The  history  of  these  transactions 
would  fill  folios.  A  few  continental  examples  may  be  supplied 
from  the  annals  of  Gregory,  Clement,  Boniface,  and  Julius,  who 
deposed  Henry,  Lewis,  Philip,  and  Lewis.  A  few  British  in- 
stances may  be  selected  from  the  history  of  Adrian,  Innocent, 
Paul,  and  Pius,  in  their  treatment  of  Henry,  John,  Henry,  and 
Elizabeth. 

Gregory  and  Clement  deposed  Henry  and  Lewis,  two  Ger- 
man emperors  ;  and  Boniface  and  Julius  degraded  Philip  and 
Lewis,  two  F  rench  kings.  Gregory  the  Seventh,  who  succeeded 
to  the  papal  throne  in  1 073,  was,  according  to  Otho,  Panvinius, 
and  the  Leodian  clergy,  the  first  Pope,  who,  in  the  fury  of  am- 
bition, attempted  the  degradation  of  civil  potentates.  I  have 
often,  says  Otho,  '  read  the  deeds  of  the  Roman  emperors,  and 
never  found  any,  prior  to  Henry,  whom  papal  usurpation  de- 
prived of  his  kingdom  or  dignity.'  Henry,  says  Panvinius, 

*  was  the  first  whom  pontifical  ambition  divested  of  his  kingdom 
or  empire.'     Hildebrand,   according  to  the    Leodian   clergy, 

*  first  lifted  the  sacerdotal  lance  against  the   royal  diadem.'1 
Similar    statements   have   been   made   by   Benno,    Waltram, 
Trithemius,     Gotofred,    Cuspinian,    Masson,    Helmold,    and 
Giannon. 

Gregory  had  not  only  the  honour  of  commencement  in  this 
field,  but  also  of  bringing  the  system  to  perfection.  His  infal- 
libility excelled  his  predecessors  and  eclipsed  all  his  successors 
in  the  noble  art,  which  he  had  the  glory  to  invent.  His  holi- 
ness pointed  his  sarcasms  against  the  institution  of  regal  gov- 
ernment, as  well  as  against  its  royal  administration.  The 
dignity  itself,  his  infallibility  declared,  '  was  the  invention  of 
laymen  wrho  were  unacquainted  with  God.  Monarchy,  which 
he  represented  as  a  stratagem  of  Satan  and  ushered  into  the 

1  Hildebrandus  primus  levavit  sacerdotalem  lanceam  contra  diadema  regis.  Crabb. 
2.  814.  Du  Pin,  476  Caron,  90  Milletot,  524. 


218  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

world  by  infernal  agency,  reigns  over  men,  his  holiness  dis- 
covered, in  blind  ambition  and  intolerable  presumption  and  in 
the  perpetration  of  rapine,  pride,  perfidy,  homicide,  and  every 
atrocity.  Kings,  who  are  void  of  religion,  Gregory  characteri- 
zed as  '  the  body  and  members  of  the  Devil.'1  Sovereigns, 
accordingly,  he  treated  as  his  vassals.  The  necks  of  ah1,  he 
alleged,  should  submit  to  the  clergy,  and  much  more  to  the 
hierarch,  whom  the  supreme  Divinity  had  appointed  to  preside 
over  the  clergy.  He  degraded  Basilas  the  Polish  king,  and 
Nicephorus  the  Grecian  emperor.  The  viceroy  of  Heaven,  in 
the  wantonness  of  ambition  and  fury,  menanced  the  French 
and  English  sovereigns,  and,  indeed,  ah1  the  European  poten- 
tates with  degradation. 

But  Gregory's  treatment  of  Henry,  the  emperor,  affords  the 
most  striking  display  of  his  tyranny.  This  denunciation  was 
issued  in  two  Roman  councils,  and  presents  the  most  frightful 
combination  of  dissimulation,  blasphemy,  arrogance,  folly,  super 
stition,  and  fury  that  ever  outraged  reason  or  insulted  man. 
The  papacy  he  represented  as  forced  on  his  acceptance,  and 
received  with  sighs  and  tears  ;  though  ambition,  it  is  well 
known,  was  the  ruling  passion  of  his  soul.  He  forced  his  way, 
in  the  general  opinion,  to  the  papal  throne  through  murder  and 
perfidy,  and  certainly  by  hasty  and  hypocritical  machinations. 
Henry  and  his  partizans,  he  denominated  '  wild  beasts  and 
members  of  the  Devil.'  Assuming  the  authority  of  Almighty 
God  even  in  an  act  of  enormity,  this  plenipotentiary  of  heaven 
proceeded  '  for  the  honour  and  protection  of  the  church,  to 
depose  Henry  from  the  government  of  Germany  and  Italy,  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.'  The  sentence 
was  accompanied  with  shocking  execrations.  His  holiness, 
4  relying  on  the  divine  mercy,  cursed  the  emperor  by  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Almighty,  with  whom  he  joined  Jesus,  Peter,  Paul, 
and  Lady  Mary  the  mother  of  God.'  Henry's  subjects,  Greg- 
ory absolved  from  the  oath  of  fidelity,  and  transferred  his 
dominions  to  Rodolphus,  to  whom  he  granted  the  pardon  of  all 
sin,  and  apostolic  benediction  in  time  and  eternity.  A  Roman 
council  of  one  hundred  and  ten  bishops,  in  which  Gregory 
presided,  urged  their  head,  by  their  importunity,  to  pass  this 
sentence,  which  was  afterwards  confirmed  by  Victor,  Urban, 
Pascal,  Gelasius,  and  Calixtus  in  the  synods  of  Beneventum, 
Placentia,  Rome,  Colonia,  arid  Rheims.2 

1  Dignitas  a  saeculaiibus  etiam  Deum  ignorantibus  inventa.  Mundi  principe  dia 
oolo  videlicet  agitante.  Labb.  12.  409  — Membra  sunt  Daemonnm.  Illi  Diaboli 
corpus  sunt.  Labb.  12.  501. — Membra  diaboli  consurrexere,  et  manus  suas  in  ma 
conjectere.  Platin.  152.  Daniel,  3,  106. 

»  Labb.  12,  599.  600,  639.     Platina,  152.     Giamion,  X.  5.     Alex.  18,  295,  33& 


DEPOSITIONS    OF    CONTINENTAL    SOVEREIGNS.  219 

His  infallibility's  curse,  however,  did  not  consume  Henry,  nor 
did  his  blefesmg  preserve  Rodolphus.  His  apostolic  benediction, 
which  he  pronounced  on  Rodolphus,  was  of  little  use  in  time, 
whatever  it  might  effect  in  eternity.  The  usurper  fell  in  battle 
against  the  emperor.1  Holding  up  his  hand,  which  had  been 
wounded  in  the  engagement,  to  his  captains, '  you  see,'  said  the 
dying  warrior,  '  this  hand  with  which  I  swore  allegiance  to 
Henry.  But  Gregory  induced  me  to  break  my  oath  and  usurp 
an  unmerited  honour.  I  have  received  this  mortal  wound  in 
the  hand,  with  which  I  violated  my  obligation.'  That  martyr 
of  ambition,  treason,  perjury,  and  pontifical  domination  made 
this  confession  and  expired. 

Many  of  the  Italian,  German,  and  French  prelacy  in  the 
mean  time,  supported  Henry  against  Gregory.  The  emperor 
mustered  a  party,  and  summoned  the  councils  of  Worms,  Mentz, 
and  Brescia  against  the  pontiff.  The  council  of  Worms  accused 
his  holiness  of  perjury,  innovation,  and  too  great  familiarity 
with  the  Countess  Matilda.  The  synod  of  Brescia  deposed  the 
head  of  the  church,  for  simony,  perjury,  sacrilege,  obstinacy, 
perverseness,  scandal,  sorcery,  necromancy,  infidelity,  heresy, 
and  Berengarianism.2  Henry,  in  this  manner,  enjoyed  the 
sweets  of  evangelical  retaliation,  and  returned,  according  to  the 
old  law,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,  or  deposition  for  deposition, 

Clement  deposed  the  Emperor  Lewis,  as  Gregory  had  de- 
graded the  E  mperor  Henry.  Lewis  indeed  was  excommunicated 
by  the  pontiffs  John,  Benedict,  and  Clement.  The  emperor, 
on  his  election,  had  not  submitted  to  be  crowned  by  the  pope, 
or  plastered  with  the  hierarch's  holy  oil.  John  the  Twenty- 
second,  therefore,  according  to  custom,  excommunicated  Lewis. 
The  pope  fulminated  red-hot  anathemas  and  execrations  against 
the  emperor,  as  a  patrqn  of  schism  and  heresy.  Benedict  con- 
firmed John's  sentence,  and  divested  Lewis  of  the  imperial 
dignity,  which,  according  to  his  infallibility,  devolved  on  the 
pontiff  as  the  viceroy  of  heaven.  Clement  the  Sixth  degraded 
Lewis  in  1344,  and  ordered  the  election  of  another  emperor.3 

Lewis,  however,  though  excommunicated  and  cursed,  protes- 
ted against  the  papal  sentence,  and  appealed  to  a  general  coun- 
cil. He  declared  that  the  imperial  dignity,  with  which  he  was 
vested  by  election,  depended  on  God  and  not  on  the  pontiff, 
who  possessed  no  authority  in  temporals.  He  even  retorted 
John's  deposition,  and  raised  Nicholas,  in  opposition,  to  the 
pontifical  throne.  The  emperor,  in  his  hostility  to  the  refrac- 
tory pontiffs,  was  supported  by  the  German  electors.  His 

1  Helmold,  c.  29.     Albert  ad  Ann.  1080.     Giannon,  X.  5.     Cc^uiUe,  415. 
»  Caron.  126.     Du  Pin,  2,  216,  217.     Giannon,  X.  5. 
»Labb.  15,  148,  419.     Du  Pin,  552.     Dan.  4.  55.  Caron.  3C 


220  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

majesty  also  consulted  the  universities  of  Germany,  France,  and 
Italy,  especially  those  of  Bononia  and  Paris,  on  the  lawfulness 
and  validity  of  the  papal  denunciations.  These  all  agreed  that 
the  acts  and  enactments  of  John  against  Lewis  were  contrary 
to  Christian  simplicity  and  divine  philosophy.1 

Boniface  and  Julius  deposed  Philip  and  Lewis,  French  kings, 
as '  Gregory  and  Clement  had  degraded  Henry  and  Lewis, 
German  emperors.  Boniface  was  a  man  of  profound  capacity, 
and  of  extensive  information  in  the  civil  and  canon  law.  Am- 
bition was  the  ruling  passion  of  his  soul ;  and  seemed,  in  him, 
to  be  without  any  bounds  or  limits.  He  hurled  his  anathemas 
in  every  direction  against  all  who  opposed  the  mad  projects  of 
his  measureless  ambition.  Philip  the  Fair,  the  French  king, 
who  withstood  his  usurpations,  was,  in  consequence,  visited  by 
the  papal  denunciations.  Boniface,  in  proper  form  and  with 
due  solemnity,  excommunicated  the  king,  interdicted  his  king- 
dom, freed  his  subjects  from  their  allegiance,  and  declared  the 
government  of  the  French  nation  to  have  devolved  on  the 
Roman  pontiff.2 

The  French  king  and  nation,  however,  refused  to  acquiesce 
in  the  pontiff's  decision  or  submit  to  his  temporal  authority. 
Boniface  declared  that  Philip  was  subject  to  the  holy  see  in 
temporals  as  well  as  in  spirituals ;  and  that  the  contrary  was 
heresy.  Philip  replied,  that  he  was  subject  to  none  in  tempo- 
rals ;  and  that  the  contrary  was  madness.  The  prince,  on  this 
occasion,  addressed  the  pontiff,  not  as  his  holiness,  but  as  his 
foolishness.  The  Parisian  parliament  burnt  the  papal  bulls. 
The  French,  consisting  of  the  nobility,  the  clergy,  and  the  mag- 
istracy convened  by  the  king,  rejected  his  claims  and  confirmed 
their  civil  and  ecclesiastical  immunity.  The  vicar-general  of 
God  was  assailed  in  turn,  and  found  guilty  of  simony,  murder, 
usury,  incest,  adultery,  heresy,  and  atheism.  The  majesty  of 
the  Church,  says  Mariana, «  was,  by  an  unprecedented  atrocity, 
violated  in  the  person  of  the  pope.'3  His  infallibility,  mad- 
dened by  the  outrage,  died  of  grief  and  desperation. 

Julius  excommunicated  Lewis,  as  Boniface  had  anathemati- 
zed Philip.  His  supremacy,  in  1510  and  in  due  and  proper 
form,  deposed  the  king,  interdicted  the  nation,  rescinded  the 
people's  oath  of  fealty,  and  transferred  the  kingdom  to  any 
successful  invader.  He  anathematized  the  Gallican  clergy,  the 

1  Acta  et  dogmata  Joannis  adversus  Caesarem,  Christianse  simplieitati  et  Divinao 
philosophise  repugnare.  Aventinus,  VII.  Caron,  44.  Du  Fiji,  2,  502. 

*  Labb.  14.  1222.  Dan.  4.  380.  Marian.  3.  306.  Du  Pin,  560.  Mezeray,  2, 
778. 

3  Par  un  attentat  inoui,  lamajest&  de  1'eglise  fut  vio\6  en  la  personne  du  Pape 
Boniface  VIII  Mariana,  3,  304.  Du  Pin,  2,  490. 


DEPOSITIONS    OF    CONTINENTAL    SOVEREIGNS.  221 

council  of  Pisa,  Milan,  and  Lyons,  and  all  the  sovereigns  who 
should  aid  the  French  monarch.  Lewis,  though  a  man  of 
honour  and  piety,  the  plenipotentiary  of  heaven  accursed  in 
dreadful  anathemas  and  imprecations.  The  king  of  Navarre, 
the  French  sovereign's  ally,  his  holiness  honoured  with  similar 
compliments  and  benedictions,  and  his  kingdoms  with  equal 
tokens  of  pontifical  charity  and  benevolence.1 

Lewis  withstood  Julius,  as  Philip  had  resisted  Boniface.  He 
convoked  a  general  assembly  of  the  French  clergy  at  Tours, 
which  established  the  nullity  of  unjust  excommunications,  the 
right  of  repelling  pontifical  usurpation,  and  the  lawfulness  of 
withdrawing  obedience,  in  case  of  aggression,  from  the  Roman 
see.  Patronized  by  his  most  Christian  majesty,  the  council  of 
Pisa,  afterwards  translated  to  Milan  and  Lyons,  convicted  his 
holiness  of  perjury,  schism,  incorrigibility,  and  obduracy,  and 
suspended  him  from  the  administration  of  the  papacy ;  and  his 
suspension,  in  the  French  nation,  was  authorised  by  the  French 
king  and  government.2 

These  are  a  few  specimens  of  continental  depositions.  But 
the  Roman  pontiffs  also  extended  their  usurpations  to  the 
British  islands,  and  assumed  the  sovereignty  of  England  and 
Ireland.  Adrian  transferred  Ireland  to  Henry  ;  while  Innocent, 
•^aul,  and  Pius  deposed  John,  Henry,  and  Elizabeth. 

Adrian  the  Fourth,  who  arrogated  the  power  of  transferring 
kingdoms,  was  a  striking  example  of  the  vicissitudes  of  human 
life,  and  the  presumption  of  many  who  rise  from  penury  to 
power.  Born  in  England,  and  the  child  of  indigence  and  obscu- 
rity, he  was  subject,  in  early  life,  to  all  the  hardships  which 
march  in  the  train  of  poverty.  He  lived  in  an  English  abbey, 
spent  his  juvenile  days  in  drudgery,  and  subsisted,  during  his 
youth,  on  alms  supplied^by  the  cold  hand  of  charity.  Elevated 
in  the  revolution  of  human  affairs,  to  the  pontifical  dignity,  he 
displayed  all  the  arrogance  which  often  attends  a  sudden  tran- 
sition from  meanness  to  celebrity.  He  compelled  the  Emperor 
Frederic  Barbarossa  to  officiate  as  his  equerry.  His  imperial 
majesty,  in  the  sight  of  all  his  army,  had  the  honour  of  holding 
the  stirrup  for  his  pontifical  holiness.3  His  infallibility,  also,  as 
the  viceroy  of  heaven,  bestowed  Ireland  on  Henry  the  Second, 
king  of  England.  Henry's  petition  on  the  occasion  and  Adrian's 
grant  are  the  two  completest  specimens  of  hypocrisy  and  the 
two  foulest  perversions  of  religion,  to  cloke  ambition  and 

1  Labb.  19.  536.    Daniel,  7.  5.     Marian,  5,  710,  711,  74,9.  787. 

2  Du  Pin,  284.     Caron.  184.  Labb.  19,  558.     Daniel,  7,  214. 

3Morery,  1.  130.  II  fat  resolve  que  Frederic  feroit  la  'onction  d'ecnyer 
aupres  du  Pape.  Brays,  3.  21. 


222  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPEKY ! 

avarice,  the  love  of  power  and  money,  that  the  annals  ot 
nations  afford. 

Henry,  in  1155,  despatched  messengers  to  Adrian,  requesting 
his  infallibility's  permission  to  invade  Ireland.  His  design,  the 
English  sovereign  pretended,  was  to  exterminate  the  seeds  of 
immorality,  and  turn  the  brutal  Irish,  who  were  Christians  only 
in  name,  to  the  faith  and  to  the  way  of  truth.1  Adrian's  reply 
was  complaisant,  and  fraud  with  the  grossest  dissimulation  and 
ambition.  He  pronounced  his  apostolic  benediction  on  Henry, 
whom  he  styled  his  dearest  son,  who,  on  account  of  his  resolu- 
tion to  conquer  Ireland,  would  r^am  glory  on  earth  and  felicity 
in  heaven.  F-  ""^  °-nd  heaven,  in  the  apostolic  manifesto,  were 
to  be  the  recr>xi*pense  of  bloodshed  and  usurpation.  The  reduc- 
tion of  Ireland  and  the  murder  of  its  inhabitants,  his  holiness 
represented  as  the  means  of  enlarging  the  bounds  of  the  church, 
teaching  the  truths  of  Christianity  to  a  barbarous  and  unlettered 
people,  and  eradicating  the  tares  of  vice  from  the  garden  of 
God.  All  this,  in  his  infallibility's  statement,  would  tend  to 
the  honour  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  souls.  His  holiness, 
anxious  in  this  manner  for  the  salvation  of  men,  was  also  mind- 
ful of  another  important  consideration.  He  had  the  recollec- 
tion to  stipulate  for  peter-pence,  which  was  an  annual  tax  from 
each  family.2  This  fruit  of  Henry's  military  mission,  which 
Adrian  repeats  in  his  apostolic  bull,  seems  to  have  been  conge- 
nial with  his  infallibility's  devotion,  and  gratifying,  in  a  par- 
ticular manner,  to  his  pontifical  piety.  The  pontiff;  like  a  holy 
humble  successor  of  the  Galilean  fisherman,  reminds  the  English 
monarch  of  his  right  to  bestow  Ireland  on  Henry.  This  island, 
his  infallibility  discovered,  and  all  others  which  have  been 
enlightened  by  the  sun  of  righteousness  and  shown  evidence  of 
their  Christianity,  belong  to  the  Roman  pontiff.  Adrian, 
who,  it  appears,  had  a  respectable  domain,  considered  Henry's 
application  for  apostolic  sanction  to  his  expedition,  as  an  earnest 
of  victory.  Adrian's  bull  was  confirmed  by  Alexander  the 
Third.  The  Irish  clergy  also  met  at  Waterford,  submitted  to 
the  papal  dictation,  and  took  an  oath  of  fidelity  to  Henry  and 
his  successors. 

Mageoghegan  and  Caron,  the  friends  of  Romanism,  have 
both  condemned  the  bull  of  Adrian,  which  transferred  Ireland 
to  Henry.3  Adrian's  sentence,  says  Mageoghegan,  i  violated 

1  Homines  illos  bestiales  ad  fidem  et  viam  reducere  veritatis.     Paris,  91. 

2  De  singulis  domibus,  annuam  unius  denarii  Beato  Petro  velle  solvere  pensionem. 
Labb.  13.  14,  15.      Mageogh.  1.  439,  et  2.  12.    Spon.  1152.  III. 

Ut  . .  .  quae  ad  honorem  Dei  et  salutera  pertinent  animarum  taliter  ordinentur, 
at  a  Deo  sempiternae  mercedis  fructum  consequi  merearis.  Trivettus  Ann.  1155. 
Dachery,  3.  151. 

»  Mageogh   1.  440.     Caron,  c.  13. 


ADRIAN    TRANSFERS    IRELAND    TO    HENRY    II.  223 

the  rights  of  nations  and  the  most  sacred  laws  of  men,  under 
the  specious  pretext  of  religion  and  reformation.  Ireland  was 
blotted  from  the  map  of  nations  and  consigned  to  the  loss  of 
freedom,  without  a  tribunal  and  without  a  crime.'  The  historian 
represents  Henry,  who  undertook  to  reform  the  brutal  Irish, 
*  as  a  man  of  perfidy,  superstition,  selfishness,  and  debauchery, 
and  void  of  gratitude,  goodness,  and  religion.'  Adrian's  bull, 
says  Caron,  '  proclaims  the  author  a  tyrant  and  a  transgressor 
of  the  law  of  nations  and  equity.' 

Innocent  divested  John  of  England,  as  Adrian  had  vested 
Henry  with  Ireland.  Innocent  the  Third,  says  Orleans,  might 
boast  of  striking  nearly  all  the  crowned  heads  with  anathemas. 
The  Roman  pontiff  opened  the  campaign  against  the  British 
sovereign  by  a  national  interdict.  This,  which  he  published  in 
1208,  presents  to  the  eye  of  superstition  an  awful  spectacle.  All 
the  institutions  of  religion  were  suspended,  except  Baptism, 
Confession,  and  the  Viaticum  in  the  last  extremity.  The 
churches  were  closed.  The  images  of  the  saints  were  laid  on 
the  ground,  and  the  bells  ceased  to  toll.  The  dead,  borne  from 
the  towns,  were,  without  ceremony  or  funeral  solemnity,  depo 
sited  in  pits  or  buried,  like  dogs,  in  the  highways.1 

The  interdict  being  found  ineffectual,  John,  in  1209,  was 
excommunicated.  All  were  forbidden  to  hold  any  communica- 
tion with  the  king  at  table,  in  council,  or  even  in  conversation. 
His  deposition  followed  in  1212.  Innocent,  in  a  consistory  of 
the  sacred  college,  and  in  accordance  with  their  unanimous 
advice,  declared  John's  dethronement,  the  recision  of  his  people's 
oath  of  allegiance,  and  the  transfer  of  the  kingdom  to  Philip  the 
French  monarch.  The  English  sovereign  was  denounced  as  the 
public  enemy  of  God.2  The  French  king  was  encouraged  to 
take  possession  of  the  English  realm.  His  holiness  exhorted 
all  Christians  in  the  British  and  French  States  to  rally  round  the 
standard  of  Philip  ;  and  offered  a.  pardon  of  all  sin  as  an  induce- 
ment to  engage  in  the  holy  expedition.  He  granted  the  sol 
diery  of  the  pious  enterprise  the  same  remission  as  the  pilgrims 
who  visited  the  sa,cred  sepulchre,  or  the  crusaders  who  marched 
for  the  recovery  of  the  holy  land.  The  British  nobility  and 
people  were  invited  to  rebellion ;  and  '  the  English  barons 
rejoiced  in  being  freed  from  the  obligation  of  fidelity.'3  Philip's 
piety  and  ambition  were  kindled  by  the  prospect  of  obtaining 

1  Corpora  quoque  defunctorum  de  civitatibus  et  villis  efferebantur,  et  more 
canum,  in  biviis  et  fossatis  sine  orationibus  et  sacerdotum  ministerio  sepeliebantur. 
M.  Paris,  217.  Polyd.  Virg.  271.  Orleans,  1.  118. 

3  Tanquam  Dei  publicura  hostem  persequantur.  Poly.  Virgil.  XV.  Orleans, 
1.  119. 

3  Les  Seigneurs  ravis  de  se  voir  absous  de  leur  serment  de  fidelite.  Dan.  3. 
fi62,  554. 


224  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

the  expiation  of  sin,  and  the  possession  of  a  kingdom.  He 
mustered  an  army,  equipped  a  fleet  of  one  hundred  sail,  and 
only  waited  a  favouring  gale  to  swell  the  canvass  and  waft  his 
army  to  the  British  shores. 

The  thunder  of  the  Vatican,  the  disaffection  of  the  English, 
and  especially  the  armament  of  the  French  king,  alarmed  the 
British  sovereign  and  shook  his  resolution.  He  submitted  to 
all  the  despotic  demands  of  the  pontiff.  British  independence 
struck  to  Roman  tyranny.  John,  in  an  assembly  of  the  English 
nobility  and  clergy,  took  the  crown  from  his  head,  delivered  it, 
in  token  of  subjection,  to  Pandolphus  the  pope's  Nuncio,  from 
whom  the  king  condescended  to  receive  this  emblem  of 
royality.1  The  monarch  confirmed  his  submission  with  an  oath. 
These  transactions  completed  the  degradation  of  majesty.  This 
important  day  witnessed  the  debasement  of  the  British  sove- 
reign, and  the  vassalage  of  the  British  nation.  Pandolphus,  in 
consequence,  who  was  vested  with  legatine  authority,  counter- 
manded Philip's  expedition.  Philip  had  only  been  the  tool  of 
Innocent's  despotism  ;  and  his  agency,  when  John  submitted, 
became  unnecessary. 

Paul  the  Third,  in  1535,  issued  sentence  of  deposition  against 
Henry  the  Eighth,  in  retaliation  for  the  British  sovereign's 
rejection  of  the  pontifical  authority.  Henry,  indeed,  according 
to  Mageoghegan  and  Du  Pin,  '  was  guilty,  not  of  heresy,  but 
merely  of  schism.  He  changed  nothing  in  the  faith.  His 
majesty,  without  any  discrimination,  persecuted  the  partizans 
of  popery  and  protestantism.  The  Reformation  indeed,  in 
England,  had  not  appeared  under  Henry.  This  Revolution  was 
reserved  for  the  following  reign.'2  But  Henry  withdrew  from 
the  papal  jurisdiction,  and,  in  consequence,  was  exposed  to 
papal  execration.  Paul  excommunicated  and  deposed  Henry, 
interdicted  the  nation,  and  absolved  his  subjects  from  their  oath 
of  allegiance.  He  transferred  the  kingdom  to  any  successful 
invader,  and  prohibited  all  communication  with  the  English 
monarch.  He  deprived  the  king  of  Christian  burial,  and  con 
signed  the  sovereign,  and  his  friends,  accomplices,  and  adherents 
to  anathemas,  maledictions,  and  everlasting  destruction.  '  Paul,' 
says  Paolo,  '  excommunicated,  anathematized,  cursed,  and  con- 
demned Henry  to  eternal  damnation.'3  He  stigmatized  his 

«•  Diadema  capiti  ademptum  Pandolpho  legato  tradit,  nunquam  id  ipse  aut 
hseredes  accepturi,  nisi  a  Pontifice  Romano.  Polydorus  Virgilius,  273.  M.  Paris. 
227.  Daniel  3.  556.  Orleans,  1.  121.  Concedimus  Deo  et  nostro  Papa?  Inno 
ceutio  ejusque  successoribus  totum  regnum  Angliae  et  totum  regnum  Hibernias, 
pro  redemptione  peccatorum  nostrorum.  Trivettus,  Am.  1213.  Dachery,  3.  1 83 

2  La  reforme  ne  s'etoit  pas  encore  montree  a  decouvert  sous  Henri  VIII.     Cette 
revolution   etoit   reservce   au   regne  suivant.     Le  Roi  n'etoit  que  schismatique 
Mageoghegan/ 2.  310. — Nihil  quidem  in  fide  mutans.     Du  Pin,  568. 

3  Eos  anathematis,  maledictionis,  et  damnationis  asternae  mucrone  peTculimus 


DEPOSITIONS    OF    HENRY  VIII.  AND  QUEEN  ELIZABETH.    225 

posterity  by  Queen  Anna,  with  illegitimacy  and  incapacity  of 
succession  to  the  crown  ;  while  he  delivered  his  partizans  to 
slavery. 

The  English  clergy,  his  holiness  commanded  to  leave  the 
kingdom,  and  admonished  the  nobility  to  arm  in  rebellion 
against  the  king.  He  annulled  every  treaty  between  Henry 
and  other  princes.  He  enjoined  the  clergy  to  publish  the 
excommunication  ;  and,  with  the  standard  of  the  cross,  to  ring 
the  bells  on  the  occasion,  and  then  extinguish  the  candles. 
All  who  opposed,  according  to  his  infallibility,  '  incurred  the 
indignation  of  Almighty  God,  and  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter 
and  Paul.' 

Pius  deposed  Elizabeth,  as  Innocent  and  Paul  had  degraded 
John  and  Henry.  His  holiness,  in  1570,  *  anathematized  her 
majesty  as  a  professor  and  patron  of  heresy,  despoiled  the 
English  queen  of  all  dominion  and  dignity,  and  freed  the  British 
nation  from  all  subjection  and  fidelity.'  His  infallibility's  im- 
precations, according  to  Gabutius,  took  effect  on  the  British 
sovereign.  *  The  queen  of  England,'  says  the  historian  of  Pius 
the  Fifth,  *  exchanged,  in  1603,  an  impious  life  for  eternal 
death.'1 

The  Roman  pontiff  also  intrigued  for  the  temporal  destruction 
of  the  English  queen,  whom  he  had  excommunicated.  This, 
he  attempted  by  rebellion  and  invasion,  and  through  the  agency 
of  Rodolpho  and  the  Spanish  king.  Rodolpho,  a  Florentine 
merchant  who  resided  at  London,  employed,  in  his  zeal  for 
Romanism,  a  variety  of  stratagems  for  exciting  an  insurrection 
in  England.  Many  partizans  of  popery  and  some  nominal 
friends  of  protestantism,  actuated  by  ambition  or  a  desire  of 
innovation,  entered  into  the  conspiracy.  This,  according  to 
Gabutius,  c  was  an  evidence  of  their  piety.'  The  majority  of 
the  nobility,  headed  by  the  Duke  of  Norfolk,  engaged,  through 
the  activity  of  Rodolpho,  in  this  combination  for  an  insurrec- 
tion.2 The  rebels  were  to  be  supported  by  a  Spanish  army  of 

Cherub.  2.  704.  II  avoit  excommunie,  anathematise,  maudit,  condamn6  a  la 
damnation  externello.  Paol.  1.  166.  Labb.  19.  1203.  Mageogh.  2.  310.  Du 
Pin,  568.  Alex.  93.  174.  Paulus,  III.  Henricum  regno  ac  dominiis  omnibus 
privatum  denunciat,  and  loca  omnia,  in  quibus  rex  fuerit,  ecclesiastico  subjicit 
interdicto.  Henrici  vassallos  and  subditos  a  juramento  fidelitatis  absolvit.  Alex. 
24.  420. 

1  Ipsam  Angloe  regno  omnique  alio  dominio  dignitate,  privilegio,  privatum  de- 
claravit,  omnesque  ac  singulos  ejus  subditos  a  juramento  fidelitatis  absolvit,  latos 
in  eos  qui  illius  legibus  and  mandatis  parerent  anathemate :  quam  constitutionem, 
Gregorius   XIII,    and   Sixtus   V.    innovarunt   and   confirmarunt.     Alex.  24.  435. 
Mageogh.    3.    412,   413.     Impiam   vitam   cum   sempiterna  morte   commutaverit. 
Gabutius,  102.     Mageogh.  3.  409.     Thuan.  2.  770. 

2  Incolarum  animos  ad  Elisabethae  perditionem,  rebellione  facta,  commoveret. 
Anglorum  in  Elisabetham  pie  conspirantium  studia  foveret.     Rodulfus  negotium  eo 
parduxit,  ut  pars  major  optimatum  in  Elisabetham  conspiraret.     Gabut.  103. 


206  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    1'OPERY  .* 

J  0,000  men  from  the  Netherlands,  under  the  command  of  tne 
Duke  of  Alva.  But  the  vigilance  of  Cecil,  Elizabeth's  Secretary, 
frustrated  the  machinations  of  Rodolpho  and  Alva. 

The  designs  of  Pius  were  afterward  pursued  by  Gregory, 
Sixtus,  and  Clement.  Gregory  the  Thirteenth,  in  1580,  sent 
his  apostolic  benediction  to  the  Irish  rebels,  who,  according  to 
his  infallibility,  were,  in  the  war  with  the  English,  righting 
against  the  friends  of  heresy  and  the  enemies  of  God.  The 
pontiff  accompanied  this  benediction  to  the  Irish  army  with  a 
plenary  pardon  of  all  sins,  as  to  the  crusaders  who  marched  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land.  He  supported  his  benediction 
and  remission  with  a  levy  of  2000  men  raised  in  the  Ecclesiasti- 
cal states.  Sixtus  the  Fifth  also  fulminated  anathemas  and 
deposition  against  Elizabeth  ;  and  urged  Spain  to  second  his 
maledictions  by  military  expeditions  to  Ireland.  Clement  the 
Eighth,  in  1600,  loaded  Oviedo  and  La  Cerda,  whom  Philip  the 
Spanish  king  had  despatched  to  Ireland,  with  crusading  indul 
gences  to  all  who  would  arm  in  defence  of  the  faith. 

The  Spanish  king,  induced  by  the  Roman  pontiff,  sent  tw: 
expeditions  to  Ireland,  under  Lerda  and  Aquilla,  witn  arms 
ammunition,  men,  and  money.  The  university  of  Salamanca 
in  the  mean  time,  as  well  as  that  of  Valladolid,  celebrated  for 
learning  and  Catholicism,  deliberated,  in  1603,  on  the  lawful- 
ness of  the  war  waged  by  the  Irish  against  the  English.  The 
Salamancan  theologians,  after  mature  consideration,  decided  in 
favour  of  its  legality,  and  of  supporting  the  army  of  the  faith 
under  the  command  of  O'Neal,  prince  of  Tyrone,  against  the 
queen  of  England.  The  learned  doctors,  at  the  same  time 
determined  against  the  lawfulness  of  resisting  O'Neal,  who  was 
the  defender  of  Catholicism  against  heresy,  The  warriors  of  the 
faith,  according  to  the  Spanish  university,  were  sowing  righte- 
ousness and  would  reap  an  eternal  recompense  :  while  those 
who  supported  the  English  committed  a  mortal  sin,  and  would 
suffer,  if  they  persisted,  the  reward  of  iniquity.  This  sentence 
proceeded  on  the  principle,  which  the  Salamancans  assumed  as 
certain,  that  the  Roman  pontiff  had  a  right  to  use  tne  secular 
arm  against  the  deserters  of  the  faith  and  the  impugners  of 
Catholicism.2  The  university  of  Valladolid  agreed  with  that  of 
Salamanca ;  and  both,  on  the  occasion,  differed  from  their 
modern  reply  in  1778  to  Pitt  the  British  statesman. 

The  Roman  pontiffs,  in  these  and  various  other  instances, 

'  Mageogh.  3.  437,  542,  549.     Thuan.  4.  531. 

3  Magno  cum  merito  et  spe  maxima  retributionis  aeternae.  Mageogh.  3.  595. 
Stafford,  285.  Tanquam  certum  est  accipiendum,  posse  Romanum  Pontificem 
fidei  desertores,  et  eos,  qui  Catholicam  religionem  oppugnant,  armia  compellere. — 
Mageogh.  3  595.  Slevin,  193. 


DETHRONEMENT  OF  KINGS  TAUGHT  BY  THE  POPES.       227 

shewed,  in  practical  illustration,  their  assumption  of  temporal 
authority.  But  these  viceroys  of  heaven  also  taught  what  they 
practised  ;  and  inculcated  the  theory  in  their  bulls,  as  well  as 
the  execution  in  fact.  The  partizans  of  the  French  system 
indeed  have,  with  the  assistance  of  shuffling  and  sophistry, 
endeavoured  to  explain  this  principle  out  of  the  pontifical 
decretals.  Doctor  Slevin,  in  the  Maynooth  examination,  has, 
on  this  topic,  exhibited  a  world  of  quibbling,  chicanery,  and 
Jesuitism.  The  learned  doctor,  with  admirable  dexterity,  plays 
the  artillery  of  misrepresentation  and  hair-breadth  distinctions. 
He  maintains  that  no  pope,  speaking  from  the  chair,  ever  pro- 
posed this  doctrine  to  the  church,  to  be  believed  as  revealed  and 
held  as  an  article  of  faith.  Doctor  Higgins,  on  the  same  occa- 
sion, and  with  more  candour  and  dogmatism  than  Slevin, 
asserted,  that  no  pontiff  defined  for  the  belief  of  the  faithful, 
that  the  pontifical  power  of  dethroning  kings  was  founded  on 
divine  right.1  These  misrepresentations  and  evasions,  how- 
ever, will  vanish  before  a  plain  unvarnished  statement  of  facts. 
These  facts  may  be  supplied  from  the  bulls  and  definitions  of 
Gregory,  Boniface,  Paul,  Pius,  and  Sixtus. 

Gregory  taught  the  principle  of  the  dethronement  of  kings, 
with  as  much  decision  and  in  as  unequivocal  a  manner  as  he 
wielded  the  exercise.  His  infallibility,  in  a  Roman  council  in 
1076,  decreed,  that  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing  in  heaven 
and  earth,  which  extended  to  temporals  as  well  as  to  spirituals, 
and  by  which  he  deposed  the  emperor  Henry,  was  given  to  the 
pontiff  by  God.  Gregory,  in  consequence,  degraded  his  imperial 
majesty  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The 
sentence,  he  pronounced  in  council,  and  therefore  in  an  official 
capacity.  He  acted,  he  declared,  by  the  authority  of  God,  and 
therefore  by  divine  right.* 

Gregory  afterwards  vindicated  his  conduct  in  a  letter  to 
Herman,  who  requested  information  on  this  subject.  The  act, 
he  said, '  was  warranted  by  many  certain  scriptural  proofs,'  and 
quoted,  as  a  specimen,  the  words  of  Jesus  conferring  the  power 
of  the  keys.  He  represented,  *  the  Holy  Fathers  as  agreeing 
in  his  favour  with  one  spirit  and  with  one  voice.'  The  contrary 
opinion  his  holiness  called  madness,  fatuity,  impudence,  and 
idolatry.  Those  who  opposed,  he  styled  wild  beasts,  the  body 
of  Satan,  and  members  of  the  devil  and  antichrist.3  Philip  the 

1  Slavin,  189.     Higgins,  275. 

*  Labb.  12.  498,  499,  600,  637,  638,  639.     Duran.  1.  46. 

3  Hujus  rei,  tarn  raulta  et  certissima  documents  in  sacrarum  scripturarum  pagini* 
reperiuntur.  Greg,  ad  Herm.  Matt.  xvi.  16. 

Sancti  patres  in  hoc  consentientes,  et  <juasi  uno  spiritu,  et  una  voce  concor- 
dantes.  Labb.  12.  498. — Contra  illorum  insaniam,  qui  nefando  ore  garriunt. — Pro 
magna  fatuitate.  Scelus  idololatrise  incurrunt.  Labb.  12.  380  497,  498. 

15* 


228  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPURY : 

French  mor.arch,  whose  soul  and  kingdom,  Gregoiy  affirmed, 
were  in  the  pontiff's  power,  his  holiness  denominated  a  ravening 
wolf,  an  iniquitous  tyrant,  and  the  enemy  of  God,  religion,  and 
the  holy  church.'1 

Boniface  followed  the  footsteps  of  Gregory.  The  Roman 
pontiff,  says  Boniface  in  his  bull  against  Philip,  '  wields,  accord- 
ing to  the  words  of  the  Gospel,  two  swords,  the  spiritual  and 
the  temporal.  He  who  denies  that  the  temporal  sword  is  in 
the  power  of  the  pope,  misunderstands  the  words  of  our  Lord.' 
His  infallibility  applies  to  the  pope,  the  language  of  Jeremiah, 
"  I  have  set  thee  over  the  nations  and  over  the  kingdoms." 
This  power,  continues  his  holiness,  *  is  not  human,  but  rather 
divine,  and  was  conferred  by  divine  authority  on  Peter  for  him- 
self and  his  successors.  He,  therefore,  who  resists  this  power, 
resists  the  institution  of  God.  The  subjection  of  all  men  to  the 
Roman  pontiff  is  wholly  necessary  for  salvation.  All  this  the 
pontiff  declared,  asserted,  pronounced,  and  defined.2 

Gibert,  Maimbourg,  and  Caron  admit  that  the  pontiff,  in  these 
words,  demies  the  pope's  temporal  power  from  the  chair,  and 
proposes  it,  as  an  article  of  faith,  to  the  whole  church.  Accord- 
ing to  Gibert,  '  Boniface  defined  that  the  earthly  is  subject  to 
the  spiritual  power,  so  that  the  former  may,  by  the  latter,  be 
constituted  and  overthrown.'  '  Boniface,'  says  Maimbourg, 
*  proposed  the  pontifical  sovereignty  over  all  earthly  kingdoms, 
in  temporals  as  well  as  in  spirituals,  to  all  as  an  article  of  faith 
necessary  for  salvation.'  l Boniface,'  according  to  Caron,  'de- 
fined from  the  chair,  that  the  French  king  was  subject  to  the 
Roman  pontiff  in  temporals  as  in  spirituals.'  Durand,  accord- 
ingly, states,  agreeably  to  the  canon  law,  that  *  the  pontiff  by 
the  commission  of  God,  wields  both  the  temporal  and  spiritual 
swords.'3 

Paul  and  Pius,  in  their  bulls  against  Henry  and  Elizabeth, 
represented  themselves  as  '  the  vicegerents  of  God,  who  gave 

Hac  fera  bestia.  Plat,  in  Greg. — Illi  diaboli  corpus  sunt, — Membra  diaboli,  Mem- 
bra sunt  Antichrist!.  Labb.  12.  501,  637. 

1  In  ejus  potestate  est,  tuum  regnum  et  anima  tua.  Lupus  rapax,  tyrannus 
iniquus.  Dei  et  religionis,  sanctae  ecclesiae  inimicus.  Greg,  ad  Phil. 

3  In  hac  ejus  potestate,  duos  esse  Gladios,  spiritual  em  videlicet  et  temporalem, 
evangelicis  dictis  instruimur.  Uterque,  ergo,  est  in  potestate  ecclesiae.  Qui  in 
potestate  Petri  temporalem  gladium  esse  negat,  male  verbum  attendit  Domini : 
constitui  te  hodie  super  gentes  et  regna.  Ore  Divino  Petro  data,  sibique,  suisque 
successoribus.  Quicunque,  igitur,  huic  potestati  a  Deo  sic  ordinatae  resistit,  Dei 
ordinationi  resistit.  Extrav.  Comm.  I.  8.  1. 

3  Bonifacius  VIII.  definit,  terrenam  potestatem  spirituali  ita  subdi,  ut  ilia  possit 
ab  ista  institui  3t  destitui.  Gibert,  2.  513. 

Boniface  propose  a  tous  les  fidelles,  comme  un  article  de  foi,  dont  la  creance  est 
necessaire  a  salut.  Maimburg,  129. 

Definit  hie  Poutifex  ex  Cathedra.  Caron.  c.  II. — Papa  utrumque  gladium  habet. 
scilicet,  temporalem  et  spiritualem,  ex  commissione  Dei.  Duron.  1.  51 


PAPAL  POWER  OF  DEPOSING  MADE  AN  ARTICLE  OF  FAITH.    229 

the  pontiffs  the  sovereignty  above  kings,  and  set  them,  in  the 
language  of  Jeremiah,  "  over  the  nations  and  over  the  kingdoms, 
to  root  out,  and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy,  and  to  throw  down, 
to  build  and  to  plant."  Sixtus,  also,  in  his  bull  against  Henry 
of  Navarre,  boasted  of*  the  immense  power  of  the  eternal  king 
conferred  on  Peter  arid  his  successors,  who  in  consequence 
could,  not  by  human  but  divine  institution,  cast  from  their 
thrones  the  most  powerful  monarchs  as  the  ministers  of  aspiring 
Lucifer.'1  These  are  a  few  specimens  of  the  temporal  authority 
which  the  Roman  viceroys  of  heaven  assumed  over  earthly 
kings. 

These  insults  on  royalty  were  not  the  mere  acts  of  the  Roman 
pontiffs.  Pontifical  deposition  of  kings  was  sanctioned  by  eight 
general,  holy,  apostolic,  Roman  councils.  These  were  the 
councils  of  the  Lateran,  Lyons,  Vienna,  Pisa,  Constance,  Basil, 
Lateran,  and  Trent. 

The  fourth  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  its  third  canon,  enacted 
formal  regulations  for  the  dethronement  of  refractory  kings. 
The  offending  sovereign,  according  to  these  regulations, '  is  first 
to  be  excommunicated  by  his  metropolitan  and  suffragans  ;  and, 
if  he  should  afterward  persist  in  his  contumacy  for  a  year,  the 
Roman  pontiff,  the  vicegerent  of  God,  is  empowered  to  degrade 
the  obstinate  monarch,  absolve  his  subjects  from  their  fealty, 
and  transfer  his  dominions  to  any  adventurer,  who  may  invade 
his  territory  and  become  the  champion  of  Catholicism.'2  This 
assembly  consisted  of  about  1300  members.  The  Greek  and 
the  Roman  emperors  attended,  and  many  other  sovereigns  in 
person  or  by  their  ambassadors.  All  these  potentates,  in  the 
true  spirit  of  servility  and  superstition,  consented,  under  certain 
conditions,  to  degradation  by  his  Roman  supremacy.  This 
enactment  was  indeed  the  debasement  of  majesty. 

The  general  council  of  Lyons  pronounced  sentence  of  depo- 
sition against  Frederic  the  Second.  This  emperor  was  the  object 
of  many  papal  denunciations,  and  was  cursed  by  Honorius, 
Gregory,  and  Innocent.  Honorius  anathematized  and  deposed 
Frederic,  and  freed  his  subjects  from  their  oath  of  fidelity. 
Gregory  the  Ninth,  says  Heinricius  and  Du  Pin,  *  proclaimed 
a  holy  war  against  Frederic,  and  cursed  him  with  all  possible 


1  Cherub.  2.  704.     Jerem.  I.  10.     Mageogh.  3.  409.     Thuan.  4.  301. 

Sixtus  dixit,  se  supremam  in  omnesreges  etprincipesuniversae  terrse,  cunctosque 
populos,  gentes,  et  nationes,  non  humana  sed  Divina  institutions  sibi  traditam 
potestatem  obtinere.  Barclay,  101.  c.  13.  Regna  et  priucipatus,  cui  et  quando 
voluerit,  dare  vel  auferre  possit.  Barclay,  7. 

*  Vassalos  ab  ejus  fidelitate  denunciet  absolutes,  et  terrain  exponat  catholicis 
occupandam,  qui  earn  possideant.  Binius,  8.  807.  Labb.  13.  833.  Alex.  2L 
599.  Du  Pin,  571. 


230  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

solemnity.'1  'His  holiness,'  says  Paris,  'consigned  his  majesty 
to  the  devil  for  destruction.'2  His  infallibility's  sentence,  indeed, 
is  a  beautiful  and  perfect  specimen  of  pontifical  execration.  His 
holiness,  seven  times  in  succession  and  nearly  in  a  breath, 
excommunicated  and  anathematized  his  imperial  majesty,  '  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,'  and  absolved 
his  subjects  from  their  oath  of  fidelity.  The  emperor  however, 
did  not  take  all  the  hierarch's  kindness  and  compliments  for 
nothing.  His  majesty,  in  return  and  in  the  overflowings  of 
gratitude  to  his  benefactor,  called  his  holiness,  '  Balaam,  Anti- 
christ, the  Prince  of  darkness,  and  the  great  dragon  that 
deceives  the  nations.'3 

Innocent  the  Fourth,  in  1245,  in  the  general  council  of  Lyons, 
repeated  this  sentence  of  degradation.  His  infallibility's  denun- 
ciation, on  the  occasion,  was  a  master-piece  of  abuse  and  impre- 
cation. The  pontiff  compared  the  emperor, '  to  Pharaoh  and  to  a 
serpent,  and  accused  his  majesty  of  iniquity,  sacrilege,  treachery, 
profaneness,  perjury,  assassination,  adultery,  schism, heresy,  and 
church-robbery.'  Having  in  these  polite  and  flattering  terms 
characterized  his  sovereign  as  an  emissary  of  Satan,  his  holiness 
proceeded,  without  hesitation  and  in  the  language  of  blasphemy, 
to  represent  himself,  as  'the  vicegerent  of  God,  to  whom,  in 
the  person  of  Peter,  was  committed  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing,  and  who  therefore  possessed  authority  over  emperors 
and  kings.'  The  emperor's  dethronement  being  pronounced  by 
the  viceroy  of  heaven,  was,  according  to  his  infallibility,  '  from 
God  himself.'4  His  denunciations,  hurling  Frederic  from  all 
honour  and  dignity,  his  supremacy  thundered  in  full  council, 
and  with  such  vociferation  and  fury,  that  he  filled  the  whole 
audience  with  astonishment  and  dismay.  The  emperor's  vassals, 
absolved  from  all  fealty,  his  holiness  prohibited,  by  apostolic 
authority  and  on  pain  of  excommunication,  to  obey  Frederic,  or 
to  lend  the  fallen  monarch  any  aid  or  favour. 

This  sentence  was  pronounced  '  in  full  synod,  after  mature 
and  diligent  deliberation,  and  with  the  consent  of  the  holy  coun- 
cil.'5 Du  Pin,  indeed,  forgetful  of  his  usual  candour,  has  recourse 

1  Cum  quanta  potest  solemnitate  clevovet.     Du  Pin,  547.     Giannon,    XVII,  1. 
Paris,  470.     Heinricius,  Ann.  1227.     Canisius,  4.  181. 

2  Dominus  Papa  Satanae  dederit  in  Perditionem.     M.  Paris,  542.     Omnes  qui  ei 
fidelitatis  juramento  tenentur,  decernendo  ab  observatione  juramenti  hujusmodi 
absolutes.     Heinricius,  Anno  1227.     Canisius,  4.  183. 

3  C'est  le  grand  Dragon,  qui  seduit  I'Univers  1'Antechrist,  un  autre  Balaam,  et 
uu  Prince  de  Tenebres.     Bruy.  3.  192. 

4  Ipsum  velut  hostem  ecclesiae  privandi  imperio  condemnavit.     Trivettus,  Ann. 
1245.     Dachery,  3.  193. 

A  deo,  ne  regnet  vel  imperet,  est  abjectus.  Paris,  651.  Labb.  14.  48,  67. 
Bin.  8.  852.  Alex.  21.  733.  Ipsum. 

6  Cum  sacrosancto  concilio,  deliberatione  pnehabita  matura  et  diligenti.  Paris, 
651.  Labb.  14.  51 


SYNODAL    DEPOSITIONS    OF    SOVEREIGNS.  231 

on  this  occasion  to  Jesuitism  ;  and  represents  the  pontifical 
sentence  as  hasty,  and  the  sole  act  of  Innocent.  This  is  a  gross 
inisstatement.  Thaddeus,  the  emperor's  advocate,  was  allowed 
to  plead  his  cause,  and  the  sentence  was  deferred  for  several 
days  for  the  purpose  of  affording  his  majesty  an  opportunity  of 
personal  attendance.  The  prelacy,  in  the  synodal  denunciation, 
concurred  with  the  pontiff.  '  The  pope  and  the  bishops,  sitting 
in  council,  lighted  tapers,  and  thundered,  says  Paris,  in  frightful 
fulminations  against  the  emperor.'1  Frederic,  therefore,  had 
the  honour  to  be  not  only  dethroned,  but  also  excommunicated 
and  cursed  with  candle  light  in  a  universal,  infallible,  holy, 
Roman  council.  This  testimony  of  Paris  is  corroborated  by 
Martin  and  Nangis.2  The  sentence  on  the  atrocious  Frederic 
was,  says  Nangis,  pronounced  after  '  diligent  previous  delibera- 
tion with  the  assembled  prelacy.'  Innocent,  says  Pope  Martin, 
'denounced  the  notorious  Frederic  at  Lyons  with  the  approba- 
tion of  the  council.' 

The  general  council  of  Lyons  issued  another  canon  of  a 
similar  kind,  but  of  a  more  general  application.  '  Any  prince 
or  other  person,  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  who  becomes  principal  or 
accessary  to  the  assassination  of  a  Christian,  or  who  defends  or 
conceals  the  assassins,'  incurs,  according  to  this  assembly  in  its 
canon  on  homicide,  *  the  sentence  of  excommunication  and 
deposition  from  all  honour  and  dignity.'3  This  canon  is  not, 
like  the  sentence  against  Frederic,  restricted  to  an  individual ; 
but  extends  to  all  sovereigns  who  are  guilty  of  a  certain  crime. 
The  Pope  decreed  this  enactment  in  proper  form,  and  with  the 
approbation  of  the  holy  general  council. 

The  general  council  of  Vienna,  in  1311,  under  the  presidency 
of  Clement,  declared  that  '  the  emperor  was  bound  to  the  Pope, 
from  whom  he  received  unction  and  coronation,  by  an  oath  of 
fealty.'  This,  in  other  words,  was  to  proclaim  the  emperor  the 
subject  or  vassal  of  the  papacy.  Former  emperors,  according 
to  the  assembly  of  Vienna,  had  submitted  to  this  obligation, 
which  still,  according  to  the  same  infallible  authority, '  retained 
its  validity.'4  His  holiness,  on  the  occasion,  also  reminded  his 
majesty  of  the  superiority  which  the  pontiff,  beyond  all  doubt, 

J  Dominus  Papa  et  pnelati,  assidentes  concilio,  candelis  accensis,  in  indicium 
imperatorem  Fredericum  terribiliter  fulgurarunt.  Paris,  652.  Giann.  XVII.  3. 

3  Diligent!  deliberatione  prschabita  cum  prrelatis  ibidem  congregatis  super  nefan- 
dis  Frederici.     Nangis,  Ann.  1045.     Dachery,  3.  35. 

Innocentius,  memoratum  Fredericum  in  concilio  Lugdunensi,  eodem  approbante, 
concilio  denunciavit.  Dachery,  3.  684. 

'J  Sacri  approbatione  concilii,  statuimus,  ut  depositionis  incurrat  seutentiam 
Labb.  14.  80.  Sex.  Decret.  V.  4.  1.  Pithou,  334. 

4  Deelaramus  ilia  juramenta  pra^dicta  fidelitatis  existere.     Clem.  L.  II.  Tit.  9 
Pithou,  356.     Bin.  8.'  909. 


232  THE  VARIATIONS  OF  POPERY  : 

possessed  in  the  empire,  and  which,  in  the  person  of  Peter,  he 
Iiad  received  from  the  King  of  Kings.  '  The  grandest  emperors 
and  kings,'  Clement  declared,  '  owed  subjection  to  the  eccle- 
siastical power  which  was  derived  from  God.' 1 

The  general  council  of  Pisa,  in  its  fifteenth  session,  forbade 
all  Christians  of  every  order  and  dignity,  even  emperors  and 
kings,  to  obey  Benedict  or  Gregory,  or  to  afford  these  degraded 
pontiffs  council  or  favour.  All  who  disobeyed  this  injunction, 
though  clothed  with  regal  or  imperial  authority,  the  Pisans 
sentenced  to  excommunication  and  the  other  punishments 
awarded  by  the  divine  precepts  and  sacred  canons.2 

The  general  council  of  Constance,  in  its  fourteenth  session, 
condemned  all,  whether  emperors  or  kings,  who  should  annoy 
the  synod  or  violate  its  canons,  to  perpetual  infamy,  the  ban  of 
the  empire,  and  the  spoliation  of  all  regal  and  imperial  autho- 
rity. The  same  infallible  assembly,  in  its  seventeenth  session, 
excommunicated  and  deposed  all  persons,  whether  clergy  or 
laity,  bishops  or  cardinals,  princes  or  kings,  who  should  throw 
any  obstacle  or  molestation  in  the  way  of  the  emperor  Sigis- 
mond  in  his  journey  to  Arragon,  to  confer  with  king  Ferdinand 
for  the  extinction  of  schism  in  the  church.  This  enactment 
roused  the  indignation  even  of  the  Jesuit  Maimbourg,  who 
styled  it  an  insult  on  all  sovereigns,  especially  the  French  king, 
through  whose  dominions  Sigismond  had  to  pass.  Du  Pin  on 
this  topic,  instead  of  his  accustomed  candour,  musters  an  array 
of  shuffling  and  misrepresentation ;  and  these,  indeed,  on  this 
occasion,  his  cause  required.  The  Constantian  convention,  in 
its  twentieth  session,  granted  a  monitory  of  excommunication 
and  interdict  against  Frederic  duke  of  Austria,  if  he  would  not 
restore  the  dominions  which  he  had  taken  from  the  Bishop  of 
Trent.  The  sentence  extended  to  his  heirs,  his  accomplices, 
i  he  loss  of  his  feudal  dominions,  which  he  held  from  the  church 
or  the  state,  and  the  absolution  of  his  vassals  from  the  oath  of 
fidelity.  The  Constantian  congress,  in  its  thirty-ninth  session, 
interdicted  the  obedience  of  all  Christians  to  Benedict,  and 
sentenced  the  refractory,  whether  bishops  or  cardinals,  empe- 
rors or  kings,  to  deposition  and  the  punishment  of  persons  guilty 
of  schism  and  heresy.3 

The  general  council  of  Basil  imitated  the  examples  of  the 
Pisan  and  Constantino  synods.  This  assembly,  in  its  fortieth 

1  Le  Roi  des  Rois  a  donne  une  telle  puissance  a  son  eglise,  que  le  Roiaume  lui 
iippartient,  qu'elle  pent  clever  les  plus  grands  Princes,  et  que  les  Empereurs  et  lea 
Hois  doivent  lui  obeir  et  la  servir.     Bruy.  3,  373.     Giannon,  XI.  1. 

2  Labb.  15.  1219.     Lenfan.  1.  278.     Du  Pin,  3.  5. 

3  Labb.  16.  236,  280,  303,  681.     Lenfant.  1.  389,  439,  502.     Bin.  8.  1077,  1115 
Maimb.  247.     Du  Pin,  3.  14,  15,  16. 


SYNODAL    DEPOSITIONS    OF    SOVEREIGNS.  233 

session,  commanded  all  the  faithful,  even  emperors  and  kings, 
to  obey  Felix,  the  newly-elected  pontiff,  under  pain  of  excom- 
munication, suspension,  interdict,  and  deprivation  of  all  regal 
and  imperial  authority.1 

The  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1512,  taught  the  same  theory. 
Cajetan,  in  this  assembly  and  without  any  opposition,  declared 
that  the  Pope  had  two  swords  ;  one  common  to  his  supremacy 
and  other  earthly  princes,  and  another  peculiar  to  himself.  Leo, 
afterward,  in  the  certainty  of  pontifical  knowledge  and  the 
plenitude  of  apostolic  power,  sanctioned  the  constitution  of 
Boniface,  teaching  the  subordination  of  the  temporal  to  the 
spiritual  power,  and  the  necessity  of  all  men's  subjection  to  the 
Roman  pontiff  for  salvation.2  This,  in  all  its  extravagancy, 
the  infallible  council,  in  its  eleventh  session,  approved  and 
confirmed. 

The  council  of  Trent  finishes  the  long  array.  This  celebrated 
assembly,  in  its  twenty-fifth  session,  excommunicated  the  king 
or  other  temporal  sovereign  who  permits  a  duel  in  his  dominions. 
The  excommunication  is  accompanied  with  the  loss  of  the  city 
or  place  which  had  been  the  scene  of  combat.3  The  territory, 
if  ecclesiastical,  is  to  be  resumed  by  the  church,  and  if  feudal, 
to  revert  to  the  direct  lord.  The  duellists  and  their  seconds 
are,  in  the  same  canon,  condemned  to  perpetual  infamy,  spolia- 
tion of  goods,  and,  if  they  fall  in  fight,  to  privation  of  Christian 
burial.  The  spectators,  though  otherwise  unconcerned,  are 
excommunicated  and  sentenced  to  eternal  malediction.4  The 
same  synod,  in  its  twenty-fourth  session,  anathematised  the 
temporal  lords  of  every  rank  and  condition,  who  compel  their 
vassals  or  any  other  persons  to  marry.  Eight  infallible  councils, 
in  this  manner,  sanctioned  a  principle,  incompatible  with  politi- 
cal government,  fraught  with  war  and  perjury,  and  calculated 
to  unhinge  and  disorganize  all  civil  society. 

All  the  beneficed  clergy  in  the  Romish  communion  are, 
according  to  the  bull  of  Pius  the  Fourth,  sworn  to  all  these 
councils  and  canons.  The  following  is  contained  in  their  oath. 
*  I  receive  and  profess  all  that  the  sacred  canons  and  general 
councils  have  delivered,  defined,  and  declared ;  and  I  shall 
endeavour,  to  the  utmost  of  my  power,  to  cause  the  same  to  be 
held,  taught,  and  preached.  This  I  promise,  vow,  and  swear, 
so  help  me  God  and  these  Holy  Gospels.'5  Any  person  who 


1  Labb.  17,  41.     Crabb.  3.  120. 

2  Labb.  19.  726.     Bin.  9.  153.     Labb.  19.  968. 


3  Synodus  regem  excommunicat  et  privat  ea  civitate  ac  loco,  in  quo  duelli  com- 
mittendi  copiam  fecerit.     Thuan.  5.  241.     Du  Pin,  3.  645.     Paolo,  VIII. 

4  Spectatores  excommunicationis  ac  perpetiue  raaledictionis  vinculo  tencantur. 
Labb.  20.  192. 

5  Oinnia  a  sacris  canoiiibus  et  oecumenicis  conciliis  tradita,  definita,  et  declarata, 


234  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

should  infringe  or  contradict  this  declaration,  will,  and  com- 
mandment, incurs,  according  to  his  infallibility,  the  indignation 
of  Almighty  God  and  the  blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul. 

The  reformation  introduced  the  fourth  era  on  this  subject  of 
the  deposing  power.  Protestantism,  from  its  infancy,  avowed 
its  hostility  to  this  principle  in  all  its  forms.  A  struggle,  there- 
fore, on  this  topic,  has  existed  for  three  hundred  years  between 
the  spirit  of  Protestantism  and  the  ambition  of  the  Papacy. 
The  Roman  pontiffs,  for  a  long  period  after  the  check  which 
the  reformation  gave  their  usurpation,  continued  to  prefer  their 
claims,  and  to  indulge,  with  fond  and  lingering  attachment,  in 
dreams  of  former  greatness.  These  patrons  of  spiritual  domi- 
nation persisted  in  fulminating  their  anathemas  with  great 
resolution,  indeed,  but  little  terror.  The  denunciations  which 
had  been  hurled  with  more  efficiency  by  a  Gregory  and  a 
Boniface,  were  wielded,  but  without  effect,  by  a  Paul,  a  Pius, 
and  a  Sixtus. 

Paul,  Pius,  and  Sixtus,  even  after  the  commencement  of  the 
reformation,  thundered  deposition  against  Henry  and  Elizabeth 
of  England  and  Henry  of  Navarre.  Paul  the  Fifth,  in  1567, 
issued  the  bull  IN  COENA.  This,  says  Giannone,  overthrows 
the  sovereignty  of  kings,  subverts  regal  sovereignty,  and  sub- 
jects political  government  to  the  power  of  the  papacy.  His 
infallibility  in  this  publication  excommunicated  by  wholesale, 
all  monarchs  who  countenanced  heresy,  as  well  as  all  who, 
without  special  licence  from  the  apostolic  see,  exact,  in  their 
own  dominions,  new  taxes  and  customs.  The  excommunica- 
tion which,  according  to  his  Supremacy's  directions,  is  published 
every  year,  extends  to  all  the  Protestant  sovereigns  in  the 
world.  His  holiness  also  enacted  ecclesiastical  laws  against 
civil  government,  which,  if  carried  into  full  execution,  would 
overturn  all  regal  authority  and  transfer  all  causes  to  episcopal 
jurisdiction.1  This  bull,  his  holiness  ordered  to  be  published 
on  holy  Thursday  and  to  become  the  law  of  all  Christendom. 
Paul  the  Fifth,  in  1609,  issued  a  bull,  forbidding  the  English 
who  were  attached  to  Romanism  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance, 
which  had  been  prescribed  by  the  king  and  contained  a  dis- 
avowal of  the  deposing  maxim.  The  oath,  according  to  his  in- 
fallibility, comprehended  many  things  inimical  to  the  faith  aid 
to  salvation.  Bellarmine,  on  the  occasion,  subsidized  the  pon- 
tiff, and,  in  support  of  his  theory,  quoted  Basil,  Gregory,  Leo, 

indubitanter  recipio  atcjue  profiteer.  Illis  quorum  cura  ad  me,  in  munere  meo, 
epectabit,  teneri,  docen,  et  praedicari,  quantum  in  me  erit,  curaturum,  ego  idem 
spondee,  voveo,  ac  juro.  Sic  me  Deus  adjuvet,  et  haec  sancta  Dei  evangelia. 
Labb.  20.  222. 

»  Giannon,  XXXIII.  4.     Maimb.  83. 


PAPAL  BULL  AGAINST  OATH  OF  ALLEGIANCE  TO  JAMES  I.  235 

Alan,  Cajetan,  Sixtus,  Mendoza,  Sanderus  and  Pedrezza.  The 
king  wrote  an  apology  for  the  oath  ;  and  the  Pope  called  the 
royal  publication  heretical,  and  subjected  its  reader,  to  excom- 
munication. But  his  infallibility's  anathemas  were  vain.1 
Many  took  the  prescribed  oath  ;  and  the  Parisian  university, 
in  defiance  of  pontifical  denunciations,  declared  it  lawful. 

Paul  the  Fifth  also  canonized  Gregory  the  Seventh,  and  in- 
serted an  office  in  the  Roman  breviary  for  the  day  of  his  festi- 
val. This  eulogizes  Gregory's  dethronement  of  Henry,  as  an 
act  of  piety  and  heroism.  The  following  are  extracts  from  the 
work  of  blasphemy.  *  Gregory  shone  like  the  sun  in  the  house 
of  God.  He  deprived  Henry  of  his  kingdom,  and  freed  his 
vassals  from  their  fealty.  All  the  earth  is  fuh1  of  his  doctrine. 
He  has  departed  to  heaven.  Enable  us,  by  his  example  and 
advocacy,  to  overcome  all  adversity.  May  he  intercede  for  the 
sins  of  all  the  people.'2  Alexander  the  Seventh  introduced  this 
office,  in  all  its  senselessness  and  impiety,  into  the  Roman 
basilics.  Clement  the  Eleventh,  in  1704,  recommended  it  to 
the  Cistercians,  and,  in  1710,  to  the  Benedictines.  The  impiety 
was  approved  by  Benedict  the  Thirteenth,  and  retains  its 
place  in  the  Roman  breviary,  though  rejected  by  most  Euro- 
pean nations.3 

Pius  the  Seventh,  so  late  as  1809,  excommunicated  and  ana- 
thematized Bonaparte.  His  holiness,  in  the  nineteenth  century, 
proceeded,  though  in  captivity,  to  pronounce  against  the  empe- 
ror, sentence  of  excommunication,  and  ah1  the  punishments  in- 
flicted by  the  sacred  canons,  the  apostolic  constitutions,  and 
the  general  councils.  His  anathemas,  which  were  pointless  as 
Priam's  dart,  Pius  hurled  from  his  spiritual  artillery  against 
Napoleon,  on  account  of  his  military  occupation  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical states.4  \ 

No  pope  or  council  has  ever  disclaimed  the  power  of  de- 
throning kings,  though  time  and  experience  have  suggested 
caution  in  its  use.  This  fact,  Crotty,  Anglade,  and  Slevin  ad- 
mitted in  their  examination  at  Maynooth.5  Many  of  the  pon- 
tiffs, knowing  the  inutility  of  avowing  the  claim,  have  wisely 
allowed  it  to  sleep  in  oblivion  and  inactivity,  till  occasion  may 

»  Thuan.  CXXXVIII.  12.     Da  Pin,  570.     Thuan.  6.  425. 

8  Da  nobia  ejus  exemplo  et  intercessions  omnia  adversantia  fortiter  superare. 
Sicut  sol  effulsit  in  demo  Dei.  Henricum  regno  privavit  atque  subditos  populoa 
fide  ei  data  liberavit.  Migravit  in  coelum.  Omnis  terra  doctrina  ejus  repleta  est. 
Ipseintercedat  pro  peccatis  omnium  Populorum.  Bruy,  2.  491 — 493.  Crotty,  85. 
Bre.  Rom.  6,  7.  Officia  Propria,  75—77. 

3  Cons.  Miscel.  35.  197,  244. 

4  Pie  VII.  lanca  une  bulle  1'  excommunication  centre  les  auteurs,  fauteurs,  et 
executeurs  des  violences  exercees  centre  le  saint-siege.     Graviere,  471. 

*  Crotty,  84.     Anglade,  182.     Slevin,  200. 


236  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

awake  its  slumbering  energy.  But  no  express  renunciation  of 
this  prerogative  has  ever  issued  from  the  Vatican.  The  councils 
also,  like  the  pontiffs,  have,  in  no  instance  since  the  eleventh 
century,  disavowed  the  assumed  right  of  degrading  monarch s. 
Another  fact  is  worthy  of  observation.  The  congregation  of  the 
Index  has  never  condemned  the  works  of  Bellarmine,  Baronius, 
Perron,  Lessius  and  other  authors,  who  have  supported  this 
claim  of  the  papacy  with  devoted  advocacy.  The  expurgato- 
rian  index  has  given  no  quarter  to  the  patrons  of  heresy,  whose 
literary  works  have  been  mangled,  mutilated,  and  condemned. 
But  the  society,  which,  in  cases  of  schism  and  protestantism, 
has  proceeded  with  inquisitorial  zeal,  has  uniformly  treated  the 
abettors  of  the  deposing  power  with  unusual  forbearance  and 
courtesy. 

The  authority  of  the  Roman  pontiff  to  dethrone  sovereigns, 
however,  since  the  days  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  has  declined. 
The  general  opinion,  says  Anglade,  even  in  popish  Christendom, 
except  the  papal  states,  is  against  this  principle.1  The  usur- 
pation has  been  denied  or  deprecated  by  some  of  the  boldest 
partizans  of  Catholicism.  Two  reasons,  however,  which 
sufficiently  account  for  this  fact,  may  be  assigned  for  the  disa- 
vowal. One  reason  arises  from  the  utter  want  of  power  to 
enforce  the  claim.  According  to  Aquinas,  4  the  church,  in  its 
infancy,  tolerated  the  faithful  to  obey  Julian,  through  want  of 
power  to  repress  earthly  princes.1  The  loyalty  of  the  pristine 
ecclesiastical  community,  clergy  and  laity,  saints,  confessors, 
and  martyrs,  the  angelic  doctor  resolves  into  weakness. 
Bellarmine,  following  Aquinas,  '  represents  inability,  as  the 
reason,  which  prevented  the  Christians  from  deposing  Nero, 
Dioclesian,  Julian,  and  Valens.'2 

The  Christian  commonwealth,  in  its  early  state,  soared  far 
above  all  such  meanness  and  hypocrisy.  But  the  Popish 
community,  for  near  300  years,  have  acted  on  the  prudent  but 
unprincipled  maxims  of  Aquinas  and  Bellarmine.  The  Refor- 
mation detached  nearly  half  the  European  nations  from  the 
domination  of  the  Romish  superstition,  and,  by  this  means, 
enfeebled  its  power.  Protestantism,  in  strength,  soon  became 
a  formidable  rival  of  popery  ;  and  the  two  religions,  the  Romish 
and  the  Reformed,  now  divide  Christendom  in  nearly  equal 
proportions.  The  defection  of  so  many  states  has,  in  a  great 
measure,  rendered  Rome's  spiritual  artillery  useless,  and  spoiled 

i  Anglade,  158. 

8  Ecclesiam,  in  eua  novitate,  nondum  habebat  potestatem  terrenes  principes 
compescendi,  et  ideo  toleravit  fideles  Juliano  Apostatae  obedire.  Aquin.  II.  12. 
II.  P.  51.  Si  Christiani  olim  non  deposuerunt  Neronem  et  Diocletiamzm,  et 
Julianum,  et  Valentem,  id  fiiit  quia  deerant  vires  temporales  Christianis.  Bell.  V.  7 


EFFECTS  OF  THE  REFORMATION  ON  THE  DEPOSING  POWER.     237 

her  anathemas  of  nearly  all  their  terrrors.  Kings  have  become 
wiser,  and  learned  to  contemn  ecclesiastical  denunciations. 
Rome,  therefore,  according  to  her  usual  policy,  has  ceased  to 
claim  an  authority  which  she  can  no  longer  exercise  with  suc- 
cess. But  raise  her  to  her  former  elevation,  and,  ancient 
ambition  returning  with  reviving  power,  she  would  reassume 
the  attitude,  in  which  she  once  launched  the  thunders  of  excom- 
munication, affrighted  monarchs,  interdicted  nations,  and 
wielded  all  the  destinies  of  man. 

A  second  reason  for  the  renunciation  of  this  maxim  arises 
from  the  effects  of  the  reformation  on  public  opinion.  These 
effects  are  not  to  be  estimated  merely  by  their  influence  on 
those  who  have  embraced  the  protestant  communion  ;  but  on 
those  also,  who,  though  they  disclaim  the  name,  have  imbibed 
something  of  its  spirit.  Many,  at  the  present  day,  remaining 
still  in  the  bosom  of  the  Romish  communion,  have  been  rea- 
soned or  ridiculed  out  of  some  of  its  loftiest  pretensions.  Senti- 
ments, in  consequence,  may,  on  this  subject,  be  now  uttered 
with  safety,  which  would  formerly  have  been  attended  with 
danger.  Answers  from  Alcala,  Valladolid,  and  Salamanca, 
similai  to  those  returned  in  our  day  to  the  celebrated  questions 
of  Pitt,  would,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  have  thrown  the  doors 
of  the  Spanish  inquisition  wide  open  for  the  reception  of  their 
authors.  The  light  of  the  reformation  exposed  the  misshapen 
fabric  of  papal  superstition,  in  all  its  frightful  deformity,  to  the 
gaze  of  the  world  ;  whilst  the  champions  of  protestantism 
pointed  their  heaviest  artillery  against  the  mighty  mass,  and 
carried  destruction  into  its  frowning  battlements,  which 
threatened  the  subversion  of  political  government  and  the  dis- 
organization of  civil  society.  Its  defenders,  in  consequence, 
abandoned  these  holds,  Yni°h  they  found  untenable  by  all  their 
spiritual  tactics  and  artillery. 

The  king-deposing  power  of  the  papacy,  however,  is  never 
likely  to  return.  The  days  of  its  glory,  in  all  probability,  have, 
on  this  usurped  claim,  for  ever  departed.  Kings,  in  general, 
even  in  the  times  of  literary  and  religious  darkness,  resisted 
this  usurpation  ;  and  often,  especially  in  France,  with  decided 
success.  Monarchs,  even  in  the  middle  ages,  frequently  con- 
temned the  thunder  of  excommunication  fulminated  from  the 
Vatican.  Those,  therefore,  who  successfully  contended  for 
their  rights  in  a  period  of  gross  superstition,  will  hardly  permit 
a  resumption  of  pontifical  usurpation  when  philosophy  and 
the  Reformation  have  poured  a  flood  of  light  over  Christen- 
dom. Prophecy,  on  the  contrary,  teaches,  in  clear  terms,  that 
Rome  will  fall  under  the  detestation  and  fury  of  regal  autho- 
rity. Kings,  in  the  strong  language  of  Revelation,  "  shall  hate 


238  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

her,  and  shall  make  her  desolate  and  naked,  and  shall  eat  her 
flesh  and  burn  her  with  fire."  The  sovereigns  of  the  earth,  it 
would  appear,  will  be  made  instrumental  in  overthrowing  the 
ecclesiastical  despotism,  the  fulminations  of  whose  spiritual 
artillery  often  shook  the  thrones  of  the  world  and  made 
monarchs  tremble. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


PERSECUTION. 


PRETENSIONS  OF  THE  PAPACY — THREE  PERIODS — FIRST  PERIOD:  RELIGIOUS  LIBER- 
TY— SECOND  PERIOD;  PERSECUTION  OF  PAGANISM — PERSECUTION  OF  HERESY- 
PERSECUTING  KINGS,  SAINTS,  THEOLOGIANS,  POPES,  AND  COUNCILS CRUSADES 

AGAINST    THE    ALBIGENSES INQUISITION THIRD    PERIOD",    PERSECUTING  DOCTORS, 

POPES,    COUNCILS,  AND    KINGS PERSECUTIONS    IN    GERMANY,  NETHERLANDS,  SPAIN, 

FRANCE,    AND    ENGLAND — DIVERSITY    OF    SYSTEMS — POPISH     DISAVOWAL     OF     PER- 
SECUTION— MODERN    OPINIONS. 

THE  popedom,  raised  to  the  supremacy  in  church  and  state, 
challenged  a  controlling  power  over  the  partisans  of  heresy, 
schism  and  apostacy,  as  well  as  over  kings.  The  sovereign 
pontiffs,  in  the  madness  of  ambition  and  despotism,  affected  the 
dominion  over  all  mankind,  and  called  the  arm  of  the  civil 
magistracy  to  their  aid,  to  enforce  their  pretensions.  Schis- 
matics and  heretics,  accordingly,  though  separated  from  the 
Romish  communion,  are  reckoned  subject  to  its  authority,  as 
rebels  and  deserters  are  amenable  to  the  civil  and  military  laws 
of  their  country.  The  traitor  may  be  punished  by  the  state  for 
his  perfidy ;  and  the  apostate,  in  like  manner,  may,  from  the 
church,  undergo  excommunication  and  anathemas.1  He  may 
even,  according  to  Aquinas,  Dens,  and  the  university  of  Sala- 
manca, followed  by  that  of  Valladolid,  be  compelled  by  arms 
to  return  to  the  profession  of  Catholicism^2  This  assumption 
of  power  and  authority  has  given  rise,  as  might  be  expected, 
to  long  and  sanguinary  persecutions. 

Christendom,  on  the  subject  of  persecution,  has  witnessed 
three  distinct  periods.  One  commenced  with  the  era  of  Re- 
demption, and  ended  at  the  accession  of  Constantine,  the  first 

1  Neque  illi  magis  ad  ecclesiam  spectant,  quam  transfugse  ad  exercitum  perti- 
neant,  a  quo  defecerunt.  Non  negandum  tamen  quin  in  ecclesiae  potestate  sint. 
Cat.  Trid.  54.— Slevin,  216,  217.  Kenney,  399.  Ecclesia  in  eos,  jurisdictionem 
habet.  Dens,  2,  80. 

3  Posse  Romanum  Pontificem  fidei  desertores,  armis  compellere.  Mageog.  3. 
395.  Hseretici  sunt  etiam  corporaliter  compellendi.  A  quin.  2,  42.  Hoeretici 
sunt  compellendi,  ut  fidem  teneant.  Aquinas,  II.  1C.  VIII. 

Cogi  possunt,  etiam  poenis  corporalibue,  ut  revertantur  ad  fidem.    Dene,  2  80 


240  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

Christian  emperor.  During  this  period,  Christians  disavowed 
all  persecution  both  in  theory  and  action.  The  second  period 
extended  from  Constantine  till  the  Reformation.  This  long 
lapse  of  years  was  more  or  less  characterized  by  continual  in- 
tolerance and  persecution,  The  third  period  occupies  the  time 
which  has  intervened  between  the  Reformation  and  the  present 
day.  This  interval  has  been  diversified  by  many  jarring 
opinions  on  the  topic  of  persecution,  the  rights  of  conscience, 
and  religious  liberty. 

The  world  saw  more  than  three  ages  pass,  from  the  era  of 
Christianity  till  the  accession  of  Constantine,  before  its  profes- 
sors disgraced  their  religion  by  the  persecution  of  heathenism 
or  heresy.  Intolerance  is  a  manifest  innovation  on  the  usage 
of  antiquity,  and  one  of  the  variations  of  Romanism.  The 
ancients,  Du  Pin  remarks,  '  inflicted  no  ecclesiastical  punish 
ment  but  excommunication,  and  never  employed  the  civil 
authority  against  the  abettors  of  heresy  and  rebellion.'  Du 
Pin  has  been  followed  by  Giannon,  Mariana,  Moreri,  and  Du 
Hamel.1 

The  Messiah,  the  apostles,  and  the  fathers  for  several  ages, 
opposed,  in  word  and  deed,  all  compulsion  and  persecution. 
The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  destroy  but  to  save  the  lives  of 
men.  This  lie  stated  to  his  apostles,  when,  in  mistaken  zeal, 
they  wished,  like  Elias,  to  command  fire  from  heaven  to  con- 
sume the  Samaritans,  who,  actuated  by  the  spirit  of  party, 
were  hostile  to  the  Jews.  His  empire,  he  declared,  is  spirit- 
ual ;  and  is  not,  like  Paganism,  Popery,  or  Islamism,  to  be 
established  or  enlarged  by  the  roar  of  artillery,  the  din  of  bat- 
tle, or  the  horrors  of  war.  When  Peter  struck  Malchus,  Jesus 
healed  the  wound,  and  condemned,  in  emphatical  language, 
the  use  of  the  sword  in  the  defence  of  his  kingdom.2 

No  two  characters,  indeed,  ever  displayed  a  more  striking 
contrast  than  the  Messiah  and  an  inquisitor.  The  Messiah  was 
clothed  in  mercy.  The  inquisitor  was  drenched  in  blood 
The  tear  of  compassion  stained  the  cheek  of  the  divine  Saviour. 
The  storm  of  vengeance  infuriated  the  face  of  the  inquisitorial 
tormentor.  The  Son  of  God  on  earth  was  always  persecuted ; 
but  never  retaliated.  His  ardent  petitions,  on  the  contrary, 
ascended  to  heaven,  supplicating  pily  for  his  enemies'  weak- 
ness and  pardon  for  their  sins. 

The  apostles  walked  in  the  footsteps  of  their  divine  master. 

1  Inauditum  certe  est  apud  antiques  quemquam  alici  quam  excommunicationis 
aut  depositioms  poena  fuisse  ab  ecclesia  mulctatum.  Du  Pin,  448.  Multis  annis, 
ecclesia  civili  authoritate  adversus  haereticos  et  rebelles  minime  usa  est.  Du  Pin 
449.— Giannon,  XV.  4.  Mariana,  4.  365.  Moreri,  5,  1'29.  Du  Hamel,  691. 

3  Matt.  xxvi.  51.  52.  Mark  xiv.  47.  Luke  ix.  56,  and  xxii.  51.  John  xviii 
10.  36. 


RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY  OF  THE  FIRST  THREE    CENTURIES.       241 

The  inspired  heralds  of  the  gospel  recommended  their  message 
by  holiness  and  miracles,  accompanied  with  the  influence  of 
divine  energy.  Persecution  from  the  powers  of  earth  and  hell, 
from  demons  and  men,  was  their  predicted  destiny.  But 
these  messengers  of  peace,  when  execrated,  blessed,  and  when 
persecuted,  showed  no  wish  for  retaliation  ;  but,  in  submission 
to  their  master's  precept,  returned  good  for  evil. 

The  fathers,  for  several  ages,  copied  the  example  of  their 
Lord  and  the  apostles.  The  ancients,  Du  Pin  observes, 
taught  with  unanimous  consent  the  unlawfulness  of  compulsion 
and  punishment  in  religion.' 3  The  sentiments  of  Origen,  Ter- 
tullian,  Cyprian,  Lactantius,  and  Bernard  on  this  topic  are 
worthy  of  transcription  and  imitation.  Christians,  says  Origen, 
'  should  not  use  the  sword.'  Religion,  according  to  Tertulhan, 
'  does  not  compel  religion.'  According  to  Cyprian,  '  the  king 
of  Zion  alone  has  authority  to  break  the  earthen  vessels  ;  nor 
can  any  claim  the  power  which  the  Father  hath  given  to  the  Son/ 
Lactantius,  in  the  following  statement,  is  still  more  full  and  ex- 
plicit, '  Coercion  and  injury  are  unnecessary,  for  religion  can- 
not be  forced.  Barbarity  and  piety  are  far  different ;  nor  can 
truth  be  conjoined  with  violence  or  justice  with  cruelty.  Reli- 
gion is  to  be  defended,  not  by  killing,  but  by  dying ;  not  by 
inhumanity,  but  by  patience.'  Bernard,  at  a  later  date,  enjoins, 
in  similar  language,  the  same  toleration.  'Faith  is  conveyed 
by  persuasion,  not  by  constraint.  The  patrons  of  heresy  are 
to  be  assailed,  not  by  arms,  but  by  arguments.  Attack  them, 
but  with  the  word,  not  with  the  sword.'2  Du  Pin  has  shown 
that  the  ideas  of  Origen,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Lactantius,  and 
Bernard  were  entertained  by  Gregory,  Athanasius,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Augustine,  Damian,  and  Anselm. 

The  second  period,  from  Constantine  till  the  Reformation, 
was  characterized,  more^or  less,  by  uninterupted  persecution 
and  constraint,  as  the  former  was  by  toleration  and  liberty. 
This  emperor's  proselytism  to  Christianity,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  fourth  century,  commenced  a  new  era  in  the  Christian 
commonwealth.  The  church,  in  his  reign,  obtained  a  new 

1  Sancti  Patres,  unanimi  consensu  decent  ecclesiam  carere  omni  gladio  materiali 
ad  homines  cogendos  et  puniendos.  Du  Pin,  450. 

3  Adversus  neminem,  Gladio  uti  debemus.  Origen,  in  Matt.  xxvi.  25.  Nee  reli- 
gionis  est  cogere  religionem.  Tertul.  ad  Scap.  69.  Fictilia  vasa  confringere 
Domino  soli  concessum  est  cui  et  virga  ferrea  data  est.  Nee  quisquam  sibi,  quod 
soli  filio  Pater  tribuit,  vindicare  potest.  Cyprian,  100.  Ep.  54.  Non  est  opus  vi 
et  injuria  quia  religio  cogi  non  potest.  Longe  diversa  sunt  carnificina  et  pietas  ; 
nee  potest  aut  veritas  cum  vi,  aut  justitia  cum  crudelitate  conjungi.  Defendenda 
enim  religio  est  non  occidendo  sed  moriendo,  non  sajvitia,  sed  patientia.  Lactan. 
V.  19.  Fides  suadenda,  non  imponenda.  Bernard,  766.  Haeretici  capiautur, 
dico  non  armis,  sed  argumentis.  Aggredere  eos  sed  verbo,  non  ferro.  Bernard. 
885.  Serm.  64. 

16 


242  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

establishment :  and  the  civil  power  began  to  sanction  the 
ecclesiastical  authority.  The  magistracy  learned  to  act  in 
unison  with  the  clergy.  The  emperor,  however,  was  not  a 
persecutor  of  Paganism.  He  extended  to  Heathenism  the  tol- 
eration which  he  withheld  from  heresy.  The  prudent  monarch, 
unwilling  to  alarm  Pagan  suspicion,  advanced  with  slow  and 
cautious  steps  to  undermine  the  irregular  and  decayed  fabric 
of  gentilism.  He  condemned  indeed  the  arts  of  divination, 
silenced  the  oracles  of  Polytheism  which  had  been  convicted 
of  fraud  and  falsehood,  and  demolished  the  temples  of  Phoenicia, 
which,  in  the  face  of  day,  displayed  all  the  abominations  of 
prostitution  to  the  honour  of  Venus.  But  he  tolerated  the 
priests,  the  immolations,  and  the  worship  of  the  Grecian  and 
Roman  gods  of  antiquity.1 

Constans  and  Constantius  imitated  the  example  of  Constan- 
tine.  Facts  and  monuments  still  remain,  to  attest  the  public 
exercise  of  idolatry  during  their  whole  reign.  Many  temples 
were  respected  or  at  least  spared  :  and  the  patrons  of  Pagan- 
Ism,  by  permission  or  connivance,  enjoyed,  notwithstanding  the 
[mperial  laws,  the  luxury  of  sacrifices,  processions,  and  festi- 
vals. The  emperors  continued  to  bestow  the  honours  of  the 
army  and  the  state  on  Christians  and  Heathens  :  whilst  wealth 
and  honour,  in  many  instances,  patronized  the  declining 
institutions  of  Polytheism.2 

Julian's  reign  was  characterized  by  apostacy,  and  Jovian' s 
brevity.  Valentinian  was  the  friend  of  toleration.  The  perse- 
cution of  Paganism  commenced  in  the  reign  of  Gratian,  and 
continued  through  the  reigns  of  Theodosius,  Arcadius,  and 
Honorius.  Gratian  and  Theodosius  were  influenced  by  Ambro- 
sius  Archbishop. of  Milan  :  and  the  clergy,  in  general,  misap- 
plied the  laws  of  the  Jewish  theocracy  and  the  transactions  of 
the  Jewish  annals,  for  the  unchristian  and  base  purpose  of 
awakening  the  demon  of  persecution  against  the  mouldering 
remains  of  Grecian  and  Roman  superstition.  Gratian  abolished 
the  pretensions  of  the  Pagan  pontiff,  the  honours  of  the  priests 
and  vestals,  transferred  their  revenues  to  the  use  of  the  church, 
the  state,  and  the  army,  and  dissolved  the  ancient  fabric  of 
Polytheism,  which  had  dishonoured  humanity  for  the  length- 
ened period  of  eleven  hundred  years. 

Theodosius  finished  the  work  of  destruction  which  Gratian 
had  begun.  He  issued  edicts  of  proscription  against  eastern 
and  western  gentilism.  Cynegius.  Jovius,  and  Gaudentius  were 
commissioned  to  close  the  temples,  destroy  the  instruments  of 

1  Moreri,  5,  129.     Euseb.  Vit.  Con.  II.  56,  60.     Gibbon,  c.  21.  22 
8  Cod.  Theod.  XVI.     Tit.  5.     Gibbon,  c.  28 


PERSECUTION    OF    PAGANISM.  243 

idolatry,  and  confiscate  the  consecrated  property.  Heavy  fines 
were  imposed  on  the  use  of  frankincense  and  libations.  The 
tomples  of  the  gods  were  afterwards  demolished.  The  fairest 
structures  of  antiquity,  the  splendid  and  beautiful  monuments 
of  Grecian  architecture  were,  by  mistaken  and  barbarian  zeal, 
levelled  with  the  dust.  The  saintified  Martin  of  Tours  in 
Gaul,  marched  at  the  head  of  its  tattered  monks  to  the  demoli- 
tion of  the  fanes,  the  idols,  and  the  consecrated  groves  of  his 
extensive  diocese.  Martin's  example  was  followed  by  Mar- 
cellus  of  Syria,  whom  Theodorus  caUs  divine,  and  by  Theophi- 
lus  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  A  few  of  these  grand  edifices 
however,  were  spared  by  the  venality  or  the  taste  of  the  civil 
or  ecclesiastical  governors.  The  Carthaginian  temple  of  the 
celestial  Venus  was  converted  into  a  Christian  church  ;  and  a 
similar  consecration  rescued  from  ruin  the  majestic  dome  of  the 
Roman  pantheon.1 

Gentilism,  by  these  means,  was,  in  the  reign  of  Arcadius 
and  Honorius,  expelled  from  the  Roman  territory.  Theodo- 
sius,  who  was  distinguished  by  his  zeal  for  the  extermination 
of  Polytheism,  questioned  whether,  in  his  time,  a  single  Pagan 
remained  in  the  empire.  Its  ruin  affords  perhaps  the  only 
example  in  the  annals  of  time  of  the  total  extirpation  of  an 
ancient  and  popular  superstition,  and  presents,  in  this  point  of 
view,  a  singular  event  in  the  history  of  the  human  mind.2 

But  the  friend  of  Christianity  and  his  species  must,  in  many 
instances,  lament  the  means  by  which  the  end  was  effected. 
Paganism  was  indeed  an  unwieldly  and  hideous  system  of 
abomination  and  folly :  and  its  destruction,  by  lawful  means, 
must  have  been  the  wish  of  every  friend  of  God  and  man. 
But  the  means,  in  this  case,  often  dishonoured  the  end. 
Coercion,  in  general,  wa£  substituted  for  conviction,  and  terror 
for  the  gospel.  One  blushes  to  read  of  a  Symmachus  and  a 
Libanius,  two  heathen  orators,  pleading  for  reason  and  persua- 
sion in  the  propagation  of  religion  ;  whilst  a  Theodosius  and 
an  Ambrosius,  a  Christian  emperor  and  a  Christian  bishop, 
urge  violence  and  constraint.  The  whole  scene  opens  a 
melancholy  but  striking  prospect,  of  human  nature.  The 
Christians,  while  few  and  powerless,  deprecated  the  unhal- 
lowed weapons  of  persecution  wielded  with  such  fury  by  the 
Pagans.  But  the  situation  of  the  two  is  no  sooner  reversed, 
than  the  heathens,  who  were  the  former  partizans  of  intoler- 
ance, recommend  forbearance  ;  and  the  Christians,  the  former 
advocates  of  toleration,  assume  the  unholy  arms  of  proscrip- 
tion. 

1  Theoph.  49.     Codex  Theod.  6.  266—274.     Giannon  III.  6.     Godeau,  3.  361. 
3  Bisciola,  318.     Cod.  Theod.  6.  277—283. 


244  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

The  hostility  of  the  secular  arm  under  the  Emperors  was  not 
restricted  to  Gentilism.  Heresy,  as  well  as  heathenism,  became 
the  object  of  imperial  persecution.  Constantine,  till  he  was 
perverted  by  the  tuition  of  the  clergy,  seems  to  have  possessed 
correct  views  of  religious  liberty  and  the  rights  of  conscience. 
The  imperial  edict  of  Milan,  conceived  in  the  genuine  spirit  of 
liberality,  was  the  great  charter  of  toleration,  which  conferred 
the  privilege  of  choosing  his  own  religion  on  each  individual  of 
the  Roman  world.  The  beauty  of  this  fair  picture,  however, 
as  usual,  was  fading  and  transitory.  Its  mild  features  were 
soon  dashed  with  traits  of  harshness  and  severity.  The  empe- 
ror, influenced  by  his  ecclesiastical  tutors,  imbibed  the  maxims 
of  illiberality,  and  learned  to  punish  men  for  consulting  their 
own  reason  in  the  concerns  of  their  own  souls. 

Sovereigns,  according  to  the  sacerdotal  theology  of  the  day, 
acted  in  a  two-fold  capacity ;  as  Christians  and  as  governors. 
Considered  as  Christians,  kings,  in  their  personal  character, 
should  believe  the  truth  as  well  as  practise  duty,  which,  as 
governors  and  in  their  official  relation,  they  should  enforce  on 
their  subjects.  Offences  against  man,  according  to  these  clerical 
casuists,  were  less  criminal  than  against  God.  Theft  and 
murder,  of  course,  were  less  heinous  than  schism  and  heresy. 
The  edicts  of  emperors,  in  consequence,  came  to  be  substituted 
for  the  gospel  of  God.  Error,  according  to  these  theologians, 
was  to  be  remedied  by  proscription  ;  which,  according  to  com- 
mon sense,  may  produce  hypocrisy,  but  can  never  enlighten 
the  understanding  or  subdue  the  heart.  Constantine,  therefore, 
in  conformity  with  this  new  or  rather  old  plan  of  instruction 
and  proselytism,  issued  two  penal  laws  against  heresy  ;  and 
was  followed,  in  the  hopeful  project,  by  Valentinian,  Gratian, 
Theodosius,  Arcadius,  and  Honorius.  Theodosius  published 
fifteen,  Arcadius  twelve,  and  Honorius  no  less  than  eighteen 
of  these  inhuman  and  Antichristian  statues.  These  are  recorded 
in  the  Theodosian  and  Justinian  codes,  to  the  eternal  infamy 
of  their  priestly  and  imperial  authors.1 

The  chief  victims  of  persecution,  during  this  period,  were  the 
Arians,  Manicheans,  Priscillianists,  and  Paulicians.  Valenti- 
nian, Gratian,  and  Theodosius  overwhelmed  Arianismwith  de- 
struction, and  clothed  Trinitarianism  with  triumph.  The 
Arians,  however,  under  Constantius  and  Valens,  Roman  empe- 
rors, and  Genseric  and  Hunneric,  Vandal  kings,  retaliated,  in 
their  turn,  in  dreadful  inhumanity  and  vengeance.  Valenti- 
nian fined  the  Manichean  doctors  and  interdicted  the  Mani- 
chean  assemblies.  Theodosius  exposed  them  to  infamy  and 

i  Theoph.  42,  45,  46.     Codex  Theod.  XVI.    Tit.  5.  p.  104-190. 


PERSECUTION    OF    HERESY.  245 

deprived  them  of  the  rights  of  citizens.  Constantine,  Gratian, 
Maximus,  and  Honorius  harassed  and  ruined  the  factions  of 
Donatism,  Priscillianism,  and  Pelagianism.  The  Paulicians 
were  persecuted  in  the  most  dreadful  manner,  during  the 
reigns  of  Constans,  Constantine,  Justinian,  Leo,  Michael,  and 
Theodora.  Ammianus,  a  heathen  historian,  and  Chrysostom. 
a  Roman  saint,  compare  the  mutual  enmity  of  Christians  at 
this  time,  to  the  fury  of  wild  beasts.1 

Heresy,  during  this  period,  was  punished  with  more  or  less 
severity,  according  to  the  offender's  supposed  criminality  or 
obstinacy.  The  penalty  was  banishment,  fine,  confiscation, 
infamy,  disqualification  of  buying  and  selling,  or  incapacity  of 
civil  and  military  honour.  The  Roman  code  contained  no  law, 
sentencing  persons  guilty  of  heresy  to  death.  Capital  punish- 
ments, indeed,  in  some  instances,  were  inflicted.  This  was  the 
case  with  the  unhappy  Priscillian  and  some  of  his  partizans, 
who  were  prosecuted  by  the  inquisitorial  Ithacius  and  sentenced 
by  the  usurping  Maximus.  But  Maximus,  on  this  occasion, 
exercised  an  illegal  authority  as  he  had  usurped  the  imperial 
power.  The  unlawful  and  unhallowed  transaction  displayed  the 
baseness  of  the  prosecutor  and  the  tyranny  of  the  emperor. 
The  few  that  suffered  capital  punishment  for  sectarianism  were, 
in  general,  also  guilty  or  supposed  to  be  guilty  of  treason  01 
rebellion.2 

The  Roman  laws,  on  the  topic  of  persecution,  continued  in 
this  state  till  the  year  800,  and  in  the  eastern  empire  till  its 
dissolution  in  1453  by  the  Ottomans.  An  important  change 
happened  about  the  commencement  of  the  ninth  century.  This 
consisted  of  the  great  eastern  schism.  The  Greek  and  Latin 
churches  were  rent  asunder  and  ceased  to  be  governed  by 
mutual  laws.  A  new  eVa,  on  the  subject  of  heresy  and  its 
punishment,  began  at  this  time  in  the  west,  and  lasted  till  the 
year  1100  of  our  redemption,  comprehending  a  lapse  of  300 
years.  This  period  was  distinguished  by  superstition,  ignorance, 
insurrection,  revolution,  and  confusion.  Sectarianism,  in  the 
European  nations,  seemed,  for  three  centuries,  to  be  nearly 
extinguished.  Egyptian  darkness  reigned  and  triumphed  over 
learning  and  morality.  The  world  sunk  into  a  literary  leth- 
argy :  and,  in  the  language  of  some  historians,  slept  the  sleep 
of  orthodoxy.  Learning,  philosophy,  religion  error,  and  secta- 
rianism reposed  in  inactivity,  or  fled  from  the  view,  amidst  the 

1  Codex  Theod.   6.  113,  115,  120,  123.     Godeau,  3.   9,   67.     Cod.  Theod.  6.  5, 
10,  130,  146.     Codex  Justin.  I.  p.  71,  75,  88.     Nullas   infestas  hominibus  bestias, 
ut  sunt  sibi  ferales  plerique  Christianiorum.     Ammian.  XXII.  5.     KnQarttp  dypta 
fastrxanev.     Chvysos.  10.  632.     Horn.  27. 

2  Giannon,  XV.  4.     Sulp.  Sev.  II.  49.     Codex.  Theod.  6.  160,  161. 

•>   . 


246  THE   VARIATIONS   OF   POPERY  : 

wide  and  debasing  dominion  of  ignorance,  immorality,  and 
superstition,  which  superseded  the  use  of  the  inquisitor  and 
crusader.1 

The  revival  of  sectarianism  followed  the  revival  of  Letters. 
Many  denominations  of  this  kind  appeared,  in  the  beginning  of 
the  twelfth  century,  among  the  European  nations,  such  as 
the  Paulicians,  Catharians,  Henricians,  Waldenses,  and  Albi- 
genses.  The  Waldenses  arid  Albigenses  were  the  most 
numerous  and  rational,  and  therefore  the  most  formidable  to  the 
Papacy.  AIL  these  concurred  in  hostility  to  Romanism,  as  a 
system  of  error  and  superstition.  The  usurpation  and  despo- 
tism of  the  Popedom  were  the  chief  objects  of  their  enmity  and 
opposition.  The  despotism  and  immorality  of  the  clergy 
exposed  them  to  the  indignation  of  sectarian  zeal.  Philosophy 
in  its  first  dawn,  learning  in  its  feeblest  glimmerings,  discovered 
the  deformity  and  shook  the  domination  of  the  Papacy.  The 
revival  of  literature,  however,  was  not  the  only  cause  of  opposi- 
tion to  Romanism.  Many  reasons  concurred.  The  reign  of 
superstition ;  the  trafic  of  indulgences ;  the  dissensions  between 
the  emperors  and  the  pontiffs ;  the  wars,  which,  for  two  hun- 
dred years,  had  desolated  the  Christian  world ;  the  luxury  of 
the  bishops  and  inferior  clergy  ;  all  these  tended  to  arouse  the 
hostility  of  men  against  the  overgrown  system  of  ecclesiastical 
tyranny.2 

This  hostility  against  the  principles  of  Popery  produced  a 
reaction  and  enmity  against  the  partizans  of  sectarianism. 
Rome  plied  all  her  spiritual  artillery,  and  vented  her  rage  in 
excommunication  and  massacre.  Heresy  or  rather  truth  and 
holiness  were  assailed  by  kings,  theologians,  popes,  councils, 
crusaders,  and  inquisitors. 

Princes  wielded  the  secular  arm  against  the  abettors  of  heresy. 
Frederic  the  German  emperor,  and  Lewis  the  French  king,  as 
well  as  many  other  sovereigns,  enacted  persecuting  laws  against 
the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses.  Frederic,  in  1224,  promul- 
gated four  edicts  of  this  kind  from  Padua.  His  majesty,  in  his 
imperial  politeness,  began  with  calling  the  Albigenses  vipers, 
snakes,  serpents,  wolves,  angels  of  wickedness,  and  sons  of 
perfidy,  who  were  descended  from  the  author  of  iniquity  and 
falsehood,  and  insulted  God  and  the  church.  Pretending  to 
the  authority  of  God  for  his  inhumanity,  he  execrated  all  the 
patrons  of  apostacy  from  Catholicism,  and  sentenced  heretics 
of  every  sect  and  denomination  alive  to  the  flames,  their  prop- 
erty to  confiscation,  and  their  posterity,  unless  they  became 
persecutors,  to  infamy.  The  suspected,  unless  they  took  an 

i  Moreri,  5.  129.     Giannon,  XV.  4.     Velly,  3.  431, 
8  Giannon,  xv.  4. 


PERSECUTION    OF    HERESY.  247    • 

oath  of  exculpation,  were  accounted  guilty.  Princes  were 
admonished  to  purify  their  dominions  from  heretical  perversity  ; 
and,  if  they  refused,  their  land  might  without  hesitation  be 
seized  by  the  champions  of  Catholicism.1  This  was  the  first 
law  that  made  heresy  a  capital  offence.  The  emperor  also 
patronized  the  inquisition,  and  protected  its  agents  of  torture 
and  malevolence. 

Lewis,  in  1228,  issued  similar  enactments.  He  published 
laws  for  the  extirpation  of  heresy,  and  enjoined  their  execution 
on  the  barons  and  bailiffs.  He  rendered  the  patrons  and  pro- 
tectors of  error  incapable  of  giving  testimony,  making  a  will,  or 
succeeding  to  any  honour  or  emolument.  The  sainted  monarch 
encouraged  the  work  of  death,  and  in  the  language  of  Pope 
Innocent,  diffused  through  the  crusading  army  '  the  natural  and 
hereditary  piety  of  the  French  kings.'  He  forced  Raymond, 
Count  of  Toulouse,  to  undertake  the  extermination  of  heresy 
from  his  dominions,  without  sparing  vassal  or  friend.  Alfonso, 
king  of  Arragon,  and  several  others  copied  the  example  of 
Frederic  and  Lewis.2 

The  emperors  were  sworn  to  exterminate  heretics.  The 
emperor  Henry,  according  to  Clement,  in  the  council  of  Vienna 
took  an  oath,  obliging  his  majesty  to  eradicate  the  professors 
and  protectors  of  heterodoxy.  A  similar  obligation  was  im- 
posed on  the  emperor  of  Germany,  even  after  the  dawn  of  the 
Reformation.  He  was  bound  by  a  solemn  oath  to  extirpate, 
even  at  the  hazard  of  his  life  and  dominions,  all  whom  the 
pontiff  condemned.3 

Saints  and  pontiffs,  in  these  deeds  of  inhumanity,  imitated 
emperors  and  kings.  Lewis,  who  enacted  such  statutes  of 
cruelty,  was  a  saint  as  well  as  a  sovereign.  Aquinas  was 
actuated  with  the  same  demon  of  malevolence,  and  breathed 
the  same  spirit  of  barbarity.  '  Heretics,'  the  angelic  doctor 
declares,  *  may  not  only  be  excommunicated  but  justly  killed. 
Such,  the  church  consigns  to  the  secular  arm,  to  be  extermina- 
ted from  the  world  by  death.'4  Dominic,  Osma,  Arnold, 

1  Hi  sunt  lupi  rapaces.     Hi  sunt  angeli  pessimi.     Hisimt  filii  pravitatum,  a  patre 
nequitiae  et  fraudis  authore.     Hi  colubri,  hi  serpentes,  qui  latenter  videntur  inser- 
pere.     Debitae  ultionis  in  eos  gladium  exeramus:  decernimus,  ut  vivi  in  conspectu 
hominum  comburantur.     Labb.  14.  25,  26.     Du  Pin,  2,  486. 

2  Labb.  13.  1231.     Velly,  4.  134.     Gibert,  1.  15. 

3  Omnem  hsresim,  schisma,  et  hrereticos  quoslibet  fautores,  receptatores,  et  de- 
fensores  ipsorum  exterminaret.     Clem.  II.  Tit.  9.     Bruy.  3.  373. 

Les  Princes,  et  encore  plus  les  Empereurs,  qui  en  font  des  sermens  si  solemnels, 
etant  etroitement  obligez  sous  peine  des  censures  d'extirper  ceux,  que  les  papes 
ont  condamnez,  et  d'y  employer  jusqu'  i  leurs  etats  et  meme  leur  vie.  Paul.  1 
103. 

4Haeretici  possunt  non  solum  excommunicari,  sed  et  juste  occidi Ecclesia 

reliriquit  eum  iudici  saeculari  mundo  exterminandum  per  mortem.     Aquinas,  II 
11.  HI.  p.  48 


248  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

Conrad,  Rainer,  Guy,  Castelnau,  Guido,  Rodolf,  and  a  long 
train  of  saints  and  doctors  might  be  named,  who,  for  support- 
ing the  work  of  murder  and  extermination,  were  raised  to  the 
honours  of  canonization. 

The  pontiffs,  like  the  kings  and  saints,  encouraged,  with  all 
their  influence,  the  system  of  persecution  and  cruelty.  Urban, 
Alexander,  Lucius,  Innocent,  Clement,  Honorius,  and  Martin 
gained  an  infamous  notoriety  for  their  ruthless  and  unre- 
lenting enactments  against  the  partizans  of  Albigensianism, 
Waldensianism,  and  Wickliffism.  Urban  the  Second,  in  1090, 
decided  that  the  person,  who,  inflamed  with  zeal  for  Catholi- 
cism, should  slay  any  of  the  excommunicated,  was  not  guilty  of 
murder.1  The  assassination  of  a  man  under  the  sentence  of 
excommunication,  his  infallibility  accounted  only  a  venial 
crime.  His  holiness  must  have  excelled  in  the  knowledge  of 
casuistry.  His  morality,  however,  Bruys  characterized  by  the 
epithets  diabolical  and  infernal.2  Lucius  the  Third  fulminated 
red-hot  anathemas  against  the  Waldenses,  as  well  as  against 
their  protectors  and  patrons,  and  consigned  them  to  the  secular 
arm,  to  undergo  condign  vengeance  in  proportion  to  their 
criminality.  Innocent  the  Fourth  sanctioned  the  enactments 
of  Frederic,  which  sentenced  the  partizans  of  error  and  apostacy 
to  be  burned  alive.  He  commanded  the  house  in  which  an 
Albigensian  had  been  sheltered  to  be  razed  from  the  founda- 
tion. All  these  viceroys  of  heaven  concurred  in  consigning  to 
infamy  any  who  should  give  the  apostate  from  the  faith  either 
counsel  or  favor ;  and  in  driving  the  magistracy  to  execute  the 
sanguinary  statutes,  by  interdicts  and  excommunication.  The 
crusaders  against  the  Albigenses  enjoyed  the  same  indulgences 
as  those  who  marched  to  the  holy  land.  Supported  by  the 
mercy  of  Omnipotent  God  and  the  blessed  apostles  Peter  and 
Paul,  Innocent  granted  these  holy  warriors  a  full  pardon  of  all 
sin,  and  eternal  salvation  in  heaven.8 

Provincial  and  national  councils  breathed  the  same  spirit  of 
persecution,  as  kings  and  pontiffs.  These  were  many.  But 
the  most  sanguinary  of  them  met  at  Toledo,  Oxford,  Avignon, 
Tours,  Lavaur,  Montpellier,  Narbonne,  Albi,  and  Tolosa. 
Anno  630,  the  national  council  of  Toledo,  in  its  third  canon, 
promulgated  an  enactment  for  the  expulsion  of  all  Jews  from 
Spain,  and  for  the  permission  of  none  in  the  kingdom  but  the 

1  Non  enim  eos  homicidas  arbitramur,  quos  advereus  excommunicates,  Zelo  Ca- 
tholicse  matris  ardentes,  aliquis  eorum  trucidasse  contingent.     Pithou,  324. 

2  Bruy.  2.  508. 

3  Plenam  peccaminum  veniam  indulgemus,  et  in  retributione  justorum  salutis 
teternse  pollicemur  augmentum.     Labb.   14.  64.     Bened.  1.  73.  et  2.  232.     Bray. 
3.  13.     Du  Pin,  2.  335.     Labb.  13   643.  et  14.  23. 


PERSECUTION    OF    THE    WALDENSES    AND    OTHERS.        249 

professors  of  Romanism.1  This  holy  assembly  made  the  king, 
on  his  accession,  swear  to  tolerate  no  heretical  subjects  in  the 
Spanish  dominions,  The  sovereign  who  should  violate  this 
oath,  and  all  his  accomplices,  would,  according  to  the  sacred, 
synod,  '  be  accursed  in  the  sight  of  the  everlasting  God,  and 
become  the  fuel  of  eternal  fire.'  This  sentence,  the  holy 
fathers  represented  '  as  pleasing  to  God.'  Spain,  at  an  early 
date,  began  those  proscriptions,  which  she  has  continued  to  the 
present  day. 

The  council  of  Oxford,  in  1160,  condemned  more  than  thirty 
of  the  Waldenses  who  had  emigrated  from  Gascony  to  Eng- 
land, and  consigned  these  unhappy  sufferers  to  the  secular  arm. 
Henry  the  Second  ordered  them,  man  and  woman,  to  be  pub- 
licly whipped,  branded  on  the  cheek  with  a  red-hot  iron,  and 
driven  half-naked  out  of  the  city  :  while  all  were  forbid  to 
grant  these  wretched  people  hospitality  or  consolation.  None 
therefore  showed  the  condemned  the  least  pity.  The  winter 
raged  in  all  its  severity,  and  the  Waldenses  in  consequence 
perished  of  cold  and  hunger.2 

The  councils  of  Tours,  Lavaur,  Albi,  Narbonne,  Beziers, 
and  Tolosa  issued  various  enactments  of  outlawry  and  ex 
termination  against  the  Albigenses  and  Waldenses.  These, 
according  to  the  sentence  of  those  sacred  synods,  were  excom- 
municated every  Sunday  and  festival ;  while,  to  add  solemnity 
and  horror  to  the  scene,  the  bells  were  rung  and  the  candles 
extinguished.  An  inquisitorial  deputation  of  the  clergy  and 
laity  was  commissioned  for  the  detection  of  heresy  and  its 
partisans.  The  barons  and  the  magistracy  were  sworn  to 
exterminate  heretical  pollution  from  their  lands.  The  barons 
who  through  fear  or  favor  should  neglect  the  work  of  destruc- 
tion, forfeited  their  estates,  which  were  transferred  to  the  active 
and  ruthless  agents  of  extirpation.  The  magistracy,  who 
were  remiss,  were  stripped  of  their  office  and  property.3 

All  were  forbidden  to  hold  any  commerce  in  buying  or 
felling  with  these  sectarians,  that,  deprived  of  the  consolations 

1  Hanc  promulgamus   Deo   placituram  sententiam.     Inter  reliqua  sacrameuta, 
pollicitus  fuerit,  nullum  non  catholicum  permittere  in  suo  regno  degere.     Teme- 
rator  hujus  extiterit  promissi  sit  anathema,  marantha,  in  conspectu  sempiterni  Dei, 
et  pabulum  efficiatui-  ignis  aeterni.     Carranza,  376.     Crabb.  2.  211.     Godea.  5.  157. 

2  Prsecepit  haereticae  infamise  characterem  frontibus  eorum  inuri ;  et  spectante 
populo,  virgis  coercitos,  urbe  expelli,  districte  prohibens,  ne  quis  eos  vel  hospitio 

recipere,  vel  aliquo  solatio  confovere,  praesumeret Algoris  intolerantia  (hyenas 

quippe  ei-at),  nemine  vel  exiguum  misericordise  impendente,  misere  interierunt. 
Labb.  13.  287,  288.     Neubrig.  II.  13.     Spelman,  2.  60. 

Excommunicentur  in  ecclesiis,  pulsatis  campanis  et  extinctis  candelis.  Labb. 
4.  158.  Dominos  locorum  de  illia  detegendis  solicitos  esse,  et  illorum  latibula  des- 
truere;  fautores  haereticorum  terrae  suse  jactura  et  aliis  poenis  plecti.  Baillivum, 
qui  exterminandis  haareticis  operam  non'  dederit,  bonis  suis  et  magistratu  exui 
Alex.  20.  1667.  Du  Pin,  2.  415  Labb.  13.  1237.  Marian.  2.  707 


250  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

of  humanity,  they  might,  according  to  the  council  of  Tours. 
'  be  compelled  to  renounce  their  error.'  No  person  was  allowed 
to  afibrJ  them  succour  or  protection.  The  house,  in  which 
the  Albigensian  sheltered  his  head,  was,  as  if  contaminated 
with  his  presence,  to  be  demolished  and  the  ground  confLscaldd. 
The  grave  itself  could  not  defi-nd  the  heretical  tenants  of  its 
cold  domains  from  the  fury  of  the  inquisitor.  The  body  or  the 
bones  of  the  Albigenses  that  slept  in  the  dust  were  to  be  disin- 
terred, and  the  mouldering  remains  committed,  in  impotent 
and  unavailing  vengeance,  to  the  (lames.1 

The  council  <>f  Tulosn,  in  1229,  waged  war  on  this  occasion 
against  the  Bible  as  well  as  ag;iinsi.  heresy.  The  sacred  synod 
strictly  forbade  the  laity  to  possess  the  Books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  in  the  vernacular  idiom.  A  layman,  in  the 
language  of  the  holy  fathers,  might  perhaps  keep  a  Psalm-book, 
a  breviary,  or  the  hours  of  holy  Mary  ;  but  no  Bible.2  This, 
Velly  admits,  was  the  first  prohibition  of  the  kind.  Twelve 
revolving  ages  from  the  commencement  of  Christianity  had 
rolled  their  ample  course  over  the  world,  and  no  assembly  of 
men  had  dared  to  interdict  the  book  of  God.  But  a  synod,  in 
a  communion  boasting  unchangeability,  arrogated  at  length  the 
authority  of  repealing  the  enactment  of  heaven  and  the  practice 
of  twelve  hundred  ye,  us. 

These  provincial  synods  were  sanctioned  by  general  coun- 
cils ;  which  therefore  were  blessed  with  infallibility.  These 
comprehended  four  of  the  Lateran,  and  those  of  Constance  and 
Sienna.  Anno  1139,  the  second  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  its 
twenty-third  canon,  excommunicated  and  condemned  the 
heretics  of  the  day  who  affected  a  show  of  piety.  These,  the 
infallible  assembly  commanded  the  civil  powers  to  suppress ; 
and  consigned  their  protectors  also  to  the  same  condemnation.3 

The  Third  general  council  of  the  Lateran  issued  a  canon  of 
a  similar  kind  ;  but  of  greater  rigour  and  severity.  This 
unerring  assembly,  in  its  twenty-seventh  canon,  and  supported 
by  the  mercy  of  God  and  the  authority  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
excommunicated  on  Sundays  and  festivals,  the  Cathari  of 

1  Nee  in  venditiouo  aut  emptione  aliqua  cum  eis  omnino  commercium  habeatur, 
ut  solutio  saltern  humanitatis  amisso  ab  errore  vita)  sum  resipiscere  cotnpellantur. 
Labb.  13.  303.  Bened.  I.  47,  52.  Domum  in  qua  fuorit  inveutus  hoereticus  dirui, 
et  fuiulum  coufiscari.  Alex.  20.  667.  Hujretiei  exhumentur  et  eorum  cadavers 
give  ossa  publice  comburantur.  Labb.  14.  160.  Alex.  2.  679. 

3  Ne  laici  libros  veteris  aut  novi  testamenti  permittantur.  Ne  sacros  libros  in 
linguam  vulgarem  translalos  habeunt,  arctissime  prohibct  Synodus.  Labb.  13. 
1239.  Alex.  20.  668.  Mez.  2.  810.  Aucun  laique  n'aura  chez  lui  lea  livres  de 
1'ancien  et  du  noveau  Testament.  Velly,  4.  133. 

3  Eos  qui  religiositatis  Bpociem  simulautes,  tanquam  haereticos  ab  ecclesiu  Dei 
pellimus,  et  damnaruus,  et  per  potestates  exteras  coerceri  prsecipimus.  Det'eusore* 
quoquo  ipsoruoi  ejusdem  damnationis  vinculo  inuodamus.  Bin.  8.  596. 


PERSECUTING    COUNCILS.  251 

/ 

Gascoay,  Albi,  and  Tolosa :  and  the  sentence  extended  to  all 
their  protectors,  who  admitted  those  sons  of  error  into  their 
houses  or  lands,  or  to  any  kind  of  traffic  or  commerce.  Their 
possessions  were  consigned  to  confiscation  and  themselves  to 
slavery  ;  while  any  who  had  made  a  treaty  or  contract  with 
them,  were  acquitted  of  their  engagement.1  Crusaders  were 
armed  against  these  adherents  of  heresy ;  and  the  holy  war- 
riors were  encouraged  in  the  work  of  extermination  and  death 
by  indulgences  and  the  assurance  of  eternal  felicity.  But  no 
oblation  was  to  be  offered  for  the  souls  of  the  heretics,  and 
their  dead  were  refused  Christian  burial  on  consecrated 
ground. 

The  fourth  general  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1245,  surpas- 
sed all  its  predecessors  in  severity.  These  persecuting  con- 
ventions seem  to  have  risen  above  each  other  by  a  regular 
gradation  of  inhumanity.  The  third  excelled  the  second  on 
the  scale  of  cruelty ;  and  both  again  were  exceeded  by  the 
fourth,  which  indeed  seems  to  have  brought  the  system  of 
persecution  to  perfection.  This  infallible  assembly  pronounced 
excorTimunication,  anathemas,  and  condemnation  against  all 
heretics  of  every  denomination,  with  their  protectors  ;  and 
consigned  all  such  to  the  secular  arm  for  due  punishment.2 
The  property  of  these  sons  of  apostacy,  if  laymen,  was,  accor- 
ding to  the  holy  fathers,  to  be  confiscated,  and,  if  clergymen, 
to  be  conferred  on  the  church.  The  suspected,  unless  they 
proved  their  innocence,  were  to  be  accounted  guilty,  and 
avoided  by  all  till  they  afforded  condign  satisfaction.  Kings 
were  to  be  solicited,  and,  if  necessary,  compelled  by  ecclesias- 
tical censures,  to  exterminate  all  heretics  from  their  dominions. 
The  sovereign,  who  should  refuse,  was  to  be  excommunicated 
by  the  metropolitan  and  suffragans  :  and,  if  he  should  prove 
refractory  for  a  year,  the  Roman  pontiff,  the  vicar-general  of 
God,  was  empowered  to  transfer  his  kingdom  to  some  cham- 
pion of  Catholicism  and  absolve  his  vassals  from  their  fealty. 
The  populace  were  encouraged  to  engage  in  crusading 
expeditions  for  the  extinction  of  heterodoxy.  The  ad- 
venturers in  these  holy  wars  enjoyed  the  same  indulgences 
and  the  same  honours  as  the  soldiery  that  marched  to 

1  Eos  et  defensores  eorum  et  receptores  anathemati  decernimus  subjacere.    Sub 
anathemate  prohibemus,  ne  quis  eos  in  domibus,  vel  in  terra  sua  tenere  vel  fovere, 
vel  negotiationem  cum  eis  exercere  praesumat.     Confiscentur  eorum  boua  et  libe- 
rum  sit  principibus  hujusraodi  homines  subjicere  servituti.     Labb.  13.  430.     Bin 
8.  662. 

2  Excommunicamus  et  anathematizamus  omnem  haeresim,  condemnantes  univer- 
BOS   hnereticos,  quibuscumque   nominibus   censeantur.     Labb.  13.  934.     Synodua 
haereticofl  omnes  diris  devovit,  et  dumnatos,  sajcularibus  potestatibus  tradi  jussit, 
animadversione  debita  puniendos.     Alex.  20.  312.     Bruy.  3.  148.     Gibert,  1.  16. 


252  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

the  Holy  Land.  The  prelacy  were  enjoined  to  bind  the 
people  of  their  vicinity  by  oath  to  inform,  if  they  knew  any 
guilty  or  suspected  of  heresy.  Any,  who  should  refuse  to 
swear,  were  to  be  considered  as  guilty  :  and  the  bishops,  if 
remiss  in  the  execution  of  their  task,  were  threatened  with 
canonical  vengeance. 

The  general  council  of  Constance,  in  1418,  sanctioned  the 
canons  of  the  Lateran.  The  holy  and  infallible  assembly,  in  its 
forty-fifth  session,  presented  a  shocking  scene  of  blasphemy  and 
barbarity.  Pope  Martin,  presiding  in  the  sacred  synod  and 
clothed  with  all  its  authority,  addressed  the  bishops  and  inquisi- 
tors of  heretical  perversity,  on  whom  he  bestowed  his  apos- 
tolic benediction.  The  eradication  of  error  and  the  establish- 
ment of  Catholicism,  Martin  represented  as  the  chief  care  of 
himself  and  the  council.  His  infallibility,  in  his  pontifical 
politeness,  characterized  Wickliff,  Huss,  and  Jerome,  as  pestilent 
and  deceitful  heresiarchs,  who,  excited  with  truculent  rage, 
infested  the  Christian  fold,  and,  in  his  supremacy's  beautiful 
style,  made  the  sheep  putrify  with  the  filth  of  falsehood.  The 
partizans  of  heresy  through  Bohemia,  Moravia,  and  other  king- 
doms, his  holiness  described  as  actuated  with  the  pride  of  Luci- 
fer, the  fury  of  wolves,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  demons.  The 
pontiff,  then,  supported  by  the  council,  proceeded,  for  the  glory 
of  God,  the  stability  of  Romanism,  and  the  preservation  of 
Christianity,  to  excommunicate  these  advocates  of  error,  with 
their  pestilent  patrons  and  protectors,  and  to  consign  them  to 
the  secular  arm  and  the  severest  vengeance.  He  commanded 
kings  to  punish  them  according  to  the  Lateran  council.  The 
above  mentioned  inhuman  enactments  of  the  Lateran,  therefore, 
were  to  be  brought  into  requisition  against  the  Bohemians  and 
Moravians.  These,  according  to  the  holy  synod,  were  to  be 
despoiled  of  all  property,  Christian  burial,  and  the  consolations 
of  humanity.1 

The  general  council  of  Sienna,  in  1423,  which  was  afterward 
continued  at  Basil,  published  persecuting  enactments  of  a  simi- 
lar kind.  The  holy  synod  assembled  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
representing  the  universal  church,  acknowledged  the  spread  of 
heresy  in  different  parts  of  the  world  through  the  remissness  of 
the  inquisitors,  and  to  the  offence  of  God,  the  injury  of  Catho- 
licism, and  the  perdition  of  souls.  The  sacred  convention  then 

1  Haeresiarchse,  Luciferina  superbia  et  rabie  lupina  evecti,  dsemonum  fraudibus 
illusi.  Oves  Christ!  Catholicas  haeresiarcha?  ipsi  successive  infecerunt,  et  in  ster- 
core  mendaciorum  fecerunt  putrescere.  Credentes  et  adhaerentes  eisdeflj,  tan- 
quam  haereticos  indicetis  et  velut  haereticos  seculan  Curiae  relinquatis.  Bin.  8. 
1120.  Secundum  tenorem  Lateranensis  Concilii  expellant,  nee  eosdem  domicilia 
tenere,  contractus  inire,  negotiationes  exercere,  aut  humanitatia  solatia  cum  Christ! 
fidelibus  habe.re  permittant.  Bin.  8.  1121.  Crab.  2.  1166. 


PERSECUTING    COUNCILS.  253 

commanded  the  inquisitors,  in  every  place,  to  extirpate  every 
heresy,  especially  those  of  Wickliff,  Huss,  and  Jerome.  Princes 
were  admonished  by  the  mercy  of  God  to  exterminate  error, 
if  they  would  escape  divine  vengeance.  The  holy  fathers  and 
the  viceroy  of  heaven  conspired,  in  this,  manner,  to  sanction 
murder  in  the  name  of  the  God  of  rnercy  :  and  granted  plenary 
indulgences  to  all  who  should  banish  those  sons  of  heterodoxy 
or  provide  arms  for  their  destruction.1  These  enactments  were 
published  every  Sabbath,  while  the  bells  were  rung  and  the 
candles  lighted  and  extinguished. 

The  filth  general  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1514,  enacted 
laws,  marked,  if  possible,  with  augmented  barbarity.  Dissem- 
bling Christians  of  every  kind  and  nation,  heretics  polluted  with 
any  contamination  of  error  were,  by  this  infallible  gang  of 
ruffians,  dismissed  from  the  assembly  of  the  faithful,  and  con- 
signed to  the  inquisition,  that  the  convicted  might  undergo  due 
punishment,  and  the  relapsed  suffer  without  any  hope  of 
pardon.2 

The  general  council  of  Trent  was  the  last  of  these  infallible 
conventions  that  sanctioned  persecutions.  This  assembly,  in 
its  second  session,  '  enjoined  the  extermination  of  heretics  by 
the  sword,  the.  fire,  the  rope,  and  all  other  means,  when  it 
could  be  done  with  safety.'  The  sacred  synod  again,  in  the 
last  session,  admonished  *  all  princes  to  exert  their  influence  to 
prevent  the  abettors  of  heresy  from  misinterpreting  or  violating 
the  ecclesiastical  decrees,  and  to  oblige  these  objectors,  as  well 
as  all  their  other  subjects,  to  accept  and  to  observe  the  synodal 
canons  with  devotion  and  fidelity.'  This  was  clearly  an 
appeal  to  the  secular  arm,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  acquies- 
cence and  submission.  The  natural  consequence  of  such 
compulsion  was  persecution.  The  holy  fathers,  having,  in  this 
laudable  manner,  taught  temporal  sovereigns  their  duty,  con- 
cluded with  a  discharge  of  their  spiritual  artillery,  .and 
pronounced  an  '  anathema  on  all  heretics.' 3  The  unerring 

1  Volens  haec  sancta  synodus  remedium  adhibere,  statuit  et  mandat  omnibus  et 
singulis  inquisitoribus  haereticae  pravitatis,  ut  solicite  intendant  inquisition!  et 
extirpation!  haeresium  quarumcumque.  Omnes  Christianae  religionis  principes  ac 
dominos  tain  ecclesiasticos  quara  saeculares  hortatur,  invitat,  et  monet  per  viscera 
misericordiae  Dei,  ad  extirpationem  tanti  per  ecclesiam  praedamnati  erroris  orani 
celeritate,  si  Divinara  ultionem  et  poenas  juris  evitare  voluerunt.  Labb.  17.  97, 
98.  Bray.  4.  72. 

^  Omnes  ficti  Christiani,  ac  de  fide  male  sentientes,  cujuscumque  generis  aut 
nationis  fuerint,  necnon  haeretici  seu  aliqua  haeresis  labe  polluti,  a  Christi  fidelium 
coetu  penitus  eliminentur,  et  quocnmque  loco  expellantur,  ac  debita  animadver 
eione  puniantur,  statuimus,  Crabb.  3,  646.  Bin.  2.  112.  Labb.  19.  844. 

3  On  devoit  les  destruire  par  le  fer,  le  feu.  la  erode,  on  tout  autre  moyen.  Paolo, 
IV.  p.  604. 

Ut  principes  omnes,  quot  facit  in  domino  moneat  ad  operam  suam  ita  praestan- 
dam,  ut  quse  ab  ea  decreta  sunt,  ab  haereticis  depravari  aut  violari  non  permittant ; 


254  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

council,  actuated  according  to  their  own  account,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  terminated  their  protracted  deliberations,  not  with 
blessing  mankind,  but  with  cursing  all  who  should  claim 
religious  liberty,  assert  the  rights  of  conscience,  or  presume  to 
differ  from  the  absurdity  of  their  synodal  decisions. 

The  principle  of  persecution,  therefore,  being  sanctioned, 
not  only  by  theologians,  popes,  and  provincial  synods,  but  also 
by  general  councils,  is  a  necessary  and  integral  part  of 
Romanism.  The  Romish  communion  has,  by  its  representa- 
tives, declared  its  right  to  compel  men  to  renounce  heterodoxy 
and  embrace  Catholicism,  and  to  consign  the  obstinate  to  the 
civil  power  to  be  banished,  tortured,  or  killed. 

The  modern  pretenders  to  liberality  in  the  Popish  commu- 
nion have,  in  general,  endeavoured  to  solve  this  difficulty  by- 
dividing  the  work  of  persecution  between  the  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical powers.  This  was  the  solution  of  Grotty,  Slevin,  and 
Higgins  at  the  Maynooth  examination.1  The  canons  of  the 
Lateran,  these  doctors  pretend,  were  the  acts  of  both  church 
and  state.  These  councils  were  conventions  of  princes  as 
well  as  of  priests,  of  kings  as  well  as  of  clergy.  Their  enact- 
ments therefore  were  authorized  by  the  temporal  as  well  as  by 
the  spiritual  authority. 

But  the  laity  never  voted  in  councils.  The  prelacy,  accord- 
ingly, Grotty  admits,  had  the  sole  right  of  suffrage,  and  these 
canons,  in  all  their  barbarity,  were  suggested  by  the  episco- 
pacy, by  whom  they  were  recommended  to  princes  and  kings. 
The  clergy  even  urged  the  laity  to  these  deeds  of  carnage  by 
interdicts  and  excommunication. 

The  solution,  even  on  the  supposition  of  concurrence  or 
collusion  between  the  church  and  state,  is  a  beautiful  specimen 
of  Shandean  dialectics.  Tristram  invented  a  plan  of  evading 
sin  by  a  division  similar  to  the  logic  of  Grotty,  Slevin,  and 
Higgins.  The  process  was  simple  and  easy.  Two  ladies 
between  them  contrived  to  repeat  a  word,  the  pronunciation  of 
which  by  one  would  have  entrenched  a  little  on  politeness  and 
morality.  Each  lady,  therefore,  rehearsed  only  half  of  the 
obnoxious  term,  and,  of  course,  preserved  a  clear  conscience 
and  committed  no  offence  against  propriety  or  purity.  Our 
learned  Popish  doctors,  in  like  manner,  and  by  equally  con- 
clusive reasoning,  have,  by  a  similar  participation,  been 
enabled  to  transubstantiate  sin  into  duty,  and  excuse  murder 
and  massacre. 

The  authority  of  the  Lateran,   Constantian,  and  Siennan 

sed  ab  his  et  omnibus  devote  recipiantur  et  fideliter  observantur.     Labb.  20.  195 
Anathema  cunctis  haereticis.     Resp.  Anathema,  Anathema,  Labb.  20.  197. 
1  Grotty,  82,  87.     Slevin,  241.     Higgins,  269. 


CRUSADE    AGAINST    THE    ALBIGENSES.  255 

canons  may  be  shown  in  another  way.  Popish  Christendom, 
without  a  single  murmur  of  opposition,  acquiesced  in  these 
decisions,  and  in  their  accomplishment  in  the  massacre  of  the 
Albigenses.  None,  among  either  the  clergy  or  laity,  remon- 
strated or  reclaimed.  But  a  Papal  bull,  received  by  open  or 
tacit  assent  and  by  a  majority  of  the  Popish  clergy,  forms  a 
dogma  of  faith.  This,  at  Maynooth,  was,  in  the  clearest  lan- 
guage, stated  by  Grotty,  Brown,  and  Higgins.1  Many  pontiffs, 
such  as  Urban,  Innocent,  Clement,  and  Honorius,  issued  such 
decretals  of  persecution.  These,  without  the  objection  of  a 
solitary  clergyman  or  layman,  were  approved  and  executed 
without  justice  or  mercy  on  the  adherents  of  heresy.  These 
principles,  therefore,  obtained  the  sanction  of  the  whole  Romish 
church,  and  have  been  marked  with  the  sign  manual  of  infalli- 
bility. 

All  the  Popish  beneficed  clergy  through  Christendom  pro- 
fess, on  oath,  to  receive  these  persecuting  canons  and  councils. 
They  swear  on  the  holy  evangelists  and  in  the  most  solemn 
manner,  '  to  hold  and  teach  ah1  that  the  sacred  canons  and 
general  councils  have  delivered,  defined,  and  declared.'2  The 
rejection  of  these  enactments  would  amount  to  a  violation  of 
this  obligation.  Any  person,  who  should  infringe  or  contra- 
dict this  declaration,  will,  and  commandment,  incurs,  according 
to  the  bull  of  Pius  the  Fourth,  the  indignation  of  Almighty  God 
and  the  blessed  apostles  Peter  and  Paul. 

The  legislation  of  kings,  pontiffs,  and  councils  was  no  idle 
speculation  or  untried  theory.  The  regal,  papal,  and  synodal 
enactments  were  called  into  active  operation  :  and  their  prac- 
tical accomplishment  had  been  written  in  characters  of  blood 
in  the  annals  of  the  papacy  and  the  inquisition. 

Pope  Innocent  first  sent  a  missionary  expedition  against  the 
Albigenses.  His  holiness,  for  this  purpose,  commissioned 
Rainer,  Guy,  Arnold,  Guido,  Osma,  Castelnau,  Rodolf,  and 
Dominic.  These,  in  the  execution  of  their  mission,  preached 
Popery  and  wrought  miracles.  Dominic,  in  particular,  though 
distinguished  for  cruelty,  excelled  in  the  manufacture  of  these 
*  lying  wonders.'  But  the  miracles  and  sermons,  or  rather  the 
imposition  and  balderdash,  of  these  apostles  of  superstition  and 
barbarity,  excited  only  the  derision  and  scorn  of  these  '  sons  of 
heresy  and  error.'  The  obdurate  people,  says  Benedict, 
4  shewed  no  desire  for  conversion  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  treated 
their  instructors  with  contempt  and  reproach.'  *  An  infinite 

1  Crotty,  78.     Brown,  154.     Higgins,  274. 

2  Omnia  a  sacris  canonibus  et  oecumenicis  conciliis  tradita,  definite,  et  declarata, 
indubitanter  recipio  atque  profiteer.     Ego  idem  spondee,  voyeo,  ac  juro.     Sic  me 
Dens  adjuvet.     Labb.  20.  222. 


256  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

number,'  says  Nangis,  *  obstinately  adhered  to  their  error.' 
According  to  Mariana,  *  The  Albigenses  increased  every  day 
and,  in  their  stupidity,  rejoiced  in  their  own  blindness.'  The 
gospel  of  Castelnau,  Rainer,  and  Arnold,  Velly  grants,  '  met 
with  no  attention ;'  and,  therefore,  according  to  Giannon's 
admission,  «  made  no  impression.'1 

His  infallibility,  Pope  Innocent  the  Third,  finding  the  ineffi- 
ciency of  his  gospel  as  preached  by  Dominic,  proclaimed,  by 
his  bulls,  a  crusade  against  the  Albigenses.  Supported  by 
divine  aid,  his  holiness,  in  the  -name  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts, 
granted  all  who  should  march  against  the  Albigensian  pestilence, 
the  pardon  of  sin,  the  glory  of  martyrdom,  and  the  possession 
of  heaven.  The  pontiff,  by  special  favour  and  indulgence,  gave 
the  hero  of  the  cross,  if  he  fell  in  battle,  an  immediate  passport, 
by  a  short  way,  to  heaven,  without  ever  touching  on  purgatory.2 
These  rewards  assembled  half  a  million  of  HOLY  WARRIORS, 
composed  of  bishops,  soldiers,  canons,  and  people,  from  Italy, 
France,  and  Germany,  ready  to  riot  in  blood  for  the  honour  of 
God,  the  good  of  society,  the  defence  of  Romanism,  and  the 
extinction  of  heresy. 

This  army  was  led  by  the  Earl  of  Montfort,  whom  ambition 
and  hypocrisy  marked  for  the  hero  of  a  holy  war.  The  arch- 
bishop of  Narbonne,  at  an  early  period,  painted  Montfort's 
ambition,  stratagems,  malice,  violence,  and  duplicity.  But  the 
contemporary  historians  ascribed  his  exploits  to  zeal  and  piety ; 
while  Raymond,  Count  of  Thoulouse,  who  was  Montfort's  rival, 
and  protector  of  the  Albigenses,  was,  on  the  contrary,  charac- 
terized as  a  member  of  the  Devil,  the  son  of  perdition,  the 
eldest  born  of  Satan,  the  enemy  of  the  cross,  the  defender  of 
heresy,  and  the  oppressor  of  Catholicism.3 

This  holy  war,  during  its  campaigns,  exhibited  a  great  diver- 
sity of  battles  and  sieges.  The  storming  of  Beziers  and  Lavaur 
will  supply  a  specimen  of  the  spirit  and  achievements  of  the 
crusading  army. 

The  city  of  Beziers  was  taken  by  storm  in   1209,  and  the 

1  Les  deux  legats  travaillerent  quelque  annees  avec  beaucoup  de  zele,  et  peu 
de  fruit.  Sans  qu'il  parut  que  les  heretiques  fussent  touchez  d'aucun  dosir  de 
conversion.  Benedict,  1,  51,  52.  Mariana,  2,  686.  Alii,  quorum  infinitus  erat 
numcrus,  sno  pertinaciter  inhaerebant  errori.  Nangis,  Ann.  1007.  Dachery,  3. 
22.  Tous  les  trois  se  mirent  £  faire  des  sermons,  qui  ne  furent  point  ecoutes. 
Velly,  3,  436.  Giannon,  XV.  4. 

8  Nos  per  indulgentias  innovatas  Crucesignatos  et  fideles  alios  excitamus,  ut  ad 
extirpandam  pestem  hanc,  Divino  freti  auxilio,  procedant  in  nomine  Domini  Sab- 
oaoth.  Alex.  20.  307.  Velly,  3,  439.  Thuan.  VI.  16.  Benedici,  1.  79. 

Innocentius  III.  sacram  adversus  baereticos  militiam  indixit.     Alex.  20.  290. 

3  L'archeveque  de  Narbonne  depeint  les  demarches,  les  mences,  les  violences, 
Vambition,  et  la  malice  de  ce  general  de  la  croisade.  Velly,  3,  444.  Vrai  men> 
bre  du  diable,  fils  de  perdition,  fils  aine  de  Satan,  ennemi  de  la  croix.  Velly,  3 
437.  Mariana,  2.  687. 


MASSACRES  OF  THE  ALBIGENSES.  257 

citizens  put  to  the  sword  without  distinction  of  condition,  age, 
sex,  or  even  religion.  When  the  Crusaders  and  Albigenses 
were  so  mixed  that  they  could  not  be  discriminated,  Arnold, 
the  Papal  missionary,  commanded  the  soldiery  to  '  kill  all  and 
God  would  know  his  own.'1  Seven  hundred  were  slain  in  the 
church.  Daniel  reckons  the  killed  at  thirty  thousand.  Meze- 
ray  and  Velly  as  well  as  some  of  the  original  historians,  estimate 
the  number  who  were  massacred  at  sixty  thousand.  The  blood 
of  the  human  victims,  who  fled  to  the  churches  for  safety  and 
were  murdered  by  the  HOLY  WARRIORS,  drenched  the  altars, 
and  flowed  in  crimson  torrents  through  the  streets. 

Lavaur  was  taken  by  storm  in  1211.  Aimeric  the  governor 
was  hanged  on  a  gibbet,  and  Girarda  his  lady  was  thrown  into 
a  well  and  overwhelmed  with  stones.  Eighty  gentlemen,  who 
had  been  made  prisoners,  were  slaughtered  like  sheep  in  cold 
blood.  All  the  citizens  were  mangled  without  discrimination 
in  promiscuous  carnage.  Four  hundred  were  burned  alive,  to 
the  extreme  delight  of  the  crusaders.2  One  shudders,  says 
Velly  in  his  history  of  these  transactions,  while  he  relates  such 
horrors. 

Languedoc,  a  country  flourishing  and  cultivated,  was  wasted 
by  these  desolators.  Its  plains  became  a  desert ;  while  its  cities 
were  burned  and  its  inhabitants  swept  away  with  fire  and 
sword.  An  hundred  thousand  Albigenses  fell,  it  is  said,  in 
one  day  :  and  their  bodies  were  heaped  together  and  burned. 
Detachments  of  soldiery  were,  for  three  months,  despatched  in 
every  direction  to  demolish  houses,  destroy  vineyards,  and  ruin 
the  hopes  of  the  husbandman.  The  females  were  defiled.  The 
march  of  the  HOLY  WARRIORS  was  marked  by  the  flames  of 
burning  houses,  the  screams  of  violated  women,  and  the  groans 
of  murdered  men.3  The  Var,  with  all  its  sanguinary  accom- 
paniments, lasted  twenty  years,  and  the  Albigenses,  during 
this  time,  were  not  the  only  sufferers.  Three  hundred  thou- 
sand crusaders  fell  on  the  plains  of  Languedoc,  and  fattened 

the  soil  with  their  blood. 

i 

1  Tuez  les  tous,  Dieu  connoit  ceux  qui  sent  a  lui.     Soixante   mille  habitant 
passerent  par  le  fil  de  1'epee.     Velly,  3.  441.     II  y  fut  tue  plus  de  soixante  mille 
persormes.     Mezeray,  2.  619.     Promiscua  caedes  civium  facta  est.     Thuan.  1.  222. 
Urbs  capta,  ctedes  promiscue  facta.     Alex.  20.  291.     Benedict,   1.   104.     Daniel, 
3.  518.     Nangis,  Ann.  1209.     Dachery,  3.  23 

2  Quatre-vingt  Dentils  hommes  prisonniers  furent  egorges  de  sang  froid.     Quatre 
cents  heretiques  furent  brules  vifs  avec  une  joye  extreme  de  la  part  des  croisSs. 
Velly,  3.  454.     Benedict,  1.  163.     Daniel,  3.  527.     Alex.  20.  292.     Nangis,  Ann, 
1210. 

3  En  violant  filles  et  femmes,     Bruy.  3.  141.     En  un  seul  jour,  on  egorgea  cent 
mille  de  ces  heretiques.     Bruys,  3.  139.     Daniel,  3.  511.     Velly,  4-  121,  135. 

On  promit  indulgence  et  absolution  pleniere  a  ceux  qui  tueroient  des  Vaudoia, 
Moreri,  8.  48. 


258  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

All  this  barbarity  was  perpetrated  in  the  name  of  religion 
The  carnage  was  celebrated  as  the  triumph  of  the  church,  the 
honour  of  the  Papacy,  and  the  glory  of  Catholicism.  The 
pope  proclaimed  the  HOLY  WAR  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The 
army  of  the  cross  exulted  in  the  massacre  of  Lavaur,  and  the 
clergy  sung  a  hymn  to  the  Creator  for  the  glorious  victory.1 
The  assassins  thanked  the  God  of  mercy  for  the  work  of  de- 
struction and  bloodshed.  The  soldiery,  in  the  morning,  at- 
tended high  mass,  and  then  proceeded,  during  the  day,  to 
waste  the  country  and  murder  its  population.  The  assassina- 
tion of  sixty  thousand  citizens  of  Beziers  was  accounted,  says 
Mariana,  *  the  visible  judgment  of  heaven.'  According  to 
Benedict,  *  the  heresy  of  Albigensianism  drew  down  the 
wrath  of  God  on  the  country  of  Languedoc.' 

The  Crusaders  were  accompanied  with  another  engine  of 
horror  and  inhumanity.  This  was  no  less  than  the  INFERNAL 
INQUISITION.  The  inventor  of  this  inquisition,  according  to 
Benedict,  was  Dominic,  who  was  also  the  first  Inquisitor  Gene- 
ral. This  historian,  indeed,  seems  doubtful  whether  the  be- 
nevolent and  Christian  idea  suggested  itself  first  to  Dominic  or 
to  Innocent,  to  the  saint  or  to  the  pontiff.  But  Dominic  first 
mentioned  it  to  Arnold.  The  saint  also  established,  as  agents 
of  this  tribunal,  a  confraternity  of  knights  whom  he  called  the 
MILITIA  OF  JESUS.*  These  demons  of  destruction,  these  fiends 
of  blood,  the  blasphemer  had  the  effrontery  to  represent  as  the 
warriors  of  the  Captain  of  Salvation.  Gregory  the  Ninth,  in 
more  appropriate  language,  styled  the  knights  the  MILITIA  op 
DOMINIC.  These,  in  Italy,  were  called  the  knights  of  the  inqui- 
sition, and  in  Spain  the  familiars  of  the  holy  office. 

Benedict  is  quite  out  of  temper  with  some  historians,  who 
would  rob  Dominic  of  the  glory  of  being  the  first  inquisitor,  and 
who  bestow  that  honour  on  Rodolf,  Castelnau,  and  Arnold. 
The  invention  of  the  holy  office,  and  the  title  of  Inquisitor- 
general,  in  this  author's  opinion,  crowns  his  hero  with  immortal 
renown.3  ^  The  historian  of  Waldensianism  therefore,  has  eter- 
nalized his  patron's  name,  by  combining  it  with  an  institution 
erected  for  human  destruction,  associated  with  scenes  of  blood, 
and  calculated  to  awaken  horror  in  every  mind  which  retains 
a  single  sentiment  of  humanity. 

Dominic,  it  must  be  granted,  was  well  qualified  for  his  office. 
He  possessed  all  that  impregnable  cruelty,  which  enabled  hia 
mind  to  soar  above  every  feeling  of  compassion,  and  to  extract 

1  Le  clerge  chantoit  avec  beaucoup  de  devotion  1'hymne  Veni  Creator.     Velly 
3.  454,  121.     Alex.  20.  307.     Mariana,  2.  687.     Benedict,  2.  139. 
8  II  nornma  lea  Freres  de  la  Milice  de  Jesus.     Bened.  2.  131. 
s  Bened.  2.  131.     Giannon,  XXXII.  5. 


CRUELTIES    OF    THE    INQUISITION.  259 

pleasure  from  scenes  of  torture  and  misery.  The  torments  of 
men  or,  at  least,  of  heretics  were  his  enjoyment.  The  saint,  in 
satanic  and  unsated  malignity,  enjoyed  the  spectacle  of  his 
victim's  bleeding  veins,  dislocated  joints,  torn  nerves,  and 
lacerated  limbs,  quivering  and  convulsed  with  agony. 

Proofs  of  his  inhumanity  appeared,  in  many  instances,  in  the 
noly  war  and  in  the  holy  office,  During  the  crusade  against 
the  Albigenses,  though  a  pretended  missionary,  he  encour- 
aged the  holy  warriors  of  the  cross  in  the  work  of  massacre 
and  murder.  He  marched  at  the  head  of  the  army  with  a 
crucifix  in  his  hand  ;  and  animated  the  soldiery  to  deeds  of 
death  and  destruction.1  This  was  the  way  of  disseminating 
Dominic's  gospel.  The  cross  which  should  be  the  emblem  of 
peace  and  mercy,  became,  in  perverted  application,  the  signal 
of  war  and  bloodshed  ;  and  the  professed  apostle  of  Christianity 
preached  salvation  by  the  sword  and  the  inquisition. 

The  holy  office  as  well  as  the  holy  war  showed  Dominic's 
cruelty.  The  inquisition,  indeed,  during  his  superintendence, 
had  no  legal  tribunal ;  and  the  engines  of  torment  were  not 
brought  to  the  perfection  exhibited  in  modern  days  of  Spanish 
inquisitorial  glory.  But  Dominic,  notwithstanding,  could,  even 
with  this  bungling  machinery  and  without  a  chartered  estab- 
lishment, gratify  his  feelings  of  benevolence  in  all  their  refine- 
ment and  delicacy.  Dislocating  the  joints  of  the  refractory 
Albigensian,  as  practised  in  the  Tolosan  Inquisition,  afforded 
the  saint  a  classical  and  Christian  amusement.  This  kind  opera- 
tion, he  performed  by  '  suspending  his  victim  by  a  cord,  affixed 
to  his  arms  that  were  brought  behind  his  back,  which,  being 
raised  by  a  wheel,  lifted  off  the  ground  the  suspected  Walden- 
sian,  man  or  woman,  who  refused  to  confess  '  till  forced  by  the 
violence  of  torture.'2  Innocent  commissioned  Dominic  to  pun- 
ish, not  only  by  confiscation  and  banishment,  but  also  with 
death ;  and,  in  the  execution  of  his  task,  he  stimulated  the 
magistracy  and  populace  to  massacre  the  harmless  professors 
of  Waldensianism.  *  His  saintship,  by  words  and  MIRACLES, 
convicted  a  hundred  and  eighty  Albigenses,  who  were  at  one 
time  committed  to  the  flames.'3 

Such  was  the  man  or  monster,  who,  to  the  present  day,  is  a 
full-length  saint  in  the  Roman  Calendar.  The  miscreant  is  an 

1  Dominique  aniraoit  les  soldats,  le  Crucifix  a  la  main  Dominique  marchoit  & 
la  tete  de  1'armee,  avec  un  crucifix  £  la  main.  Bened.  1.  248,  249.  Les  Catholi- 
ques  animes  par  les  exhortations  de  S.  Dominique.  Marian.  2.  689. 

^  *  In  chorda  levatus  aliquantulum.     Negans  se  quicquam  de  haeresi  confessum 
nisi  per  violentiam  tormentorum.     Limborch,  IV.  29. 

3  Fuerunt  aliquando  simul  exusti  OLXXX  ha?retici  Albigenses,  cum  ante-i  e* 
verbis  et  miraculis  eos  S.  Dominicus  convicisset.  Bell,  de  Laic.  III.  22.  Velly 
3.  435  Giannon,  XV.  4. 

17* 


260  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

object  of  worship  in  the  popish  communion.  The  Roman  bre- 
viary lauds  '  his  merits  and  doctrines  which  enlightened  the 
church,  his  ingenuity  and  virtue  which  overthrew  the  Tolosan 
heretics,  and  his  many  miracles  which  extended  even  to  the 
raising  of  the  dead.'  The  Roman  missal,  having  eulogized  his 
merits,  prays  for  *  temporal  aid  through  his  intercession/1  The 
holy  infallible  church,  in  this  manner,  perfers  adoration  to  the 
canonized  Dominic,  who  was  the  first  Inquisitor-General,  and 
one  of  the  greatest  ruffians  that  ever  disgraced  humanity. 

The  inquisition  was  first  established  in  Languedoc.  The 
council  of  Thoulouse,  in  1229,  appointed  a  priest  and  three 
laymen  to  search  for  the  partizans  of  heresy.  The  synod  of 
Alby,  in  1254,  commissioned  a  clergyman  and  a  layman  to 
engage  in  the  same  odious  task  :  and  this  commencement  con- 
stituted this  infernal  institution  in  its  infancy.  Tiic  tribunal 
afterward  received  various  alterations  and  fresh  accessions  of 
power,  till,  at  length,  it  was  authorized  in  Spain,  Portugal,  and 
Goa  to  try  the  suspected,  not  only  for  heresy,  but  also  for 
blasphemy,  magic,  sorcery,  witchcraft,  infidelity,  and  Judaism, 
and  to  punish  the  convicted  with  infamy,  imprisonment,  galley- 
slavery,  banishment,  outlawry,  confiscation  of  property,  and 
consignment  to  the  flames  in  an  ACT  of  FAITH.S 

The  holy  office  admitted  all  kinds  of  evidence.  Suspicion 
alone  would  subject  its  object  to  a  long  course  of  imprisonment 
in  a  dungeon,  far  from  all  intercourse  with  friends  or  society. 
A  malefactor  or  a  child  was  allowed  to  be  a  witness.  A  son 
might  depose  against  his  father,  or  a  wife  against  her  husband. 
The  accuser  and  the  accusation  were  equally  unknown  to  the 
accused,  who  was  urged  by  the  most  treacherous  means  to  dis- 
cover on  himself.  His  feelings,  in  the  mean  time,  were  horrified 
by  a  vast  apparatus  of  crosses,  imprecations,  exorcisms,  con- 
jurations, and  flaming  piles  of  wood,  ready  to  consume  the 
guilty.3 

The  RACK,  in  defect  of  evidence,  was  applied.  The  accused, 
whether  man  or  woman,  was,  in  defiance  of  all  decency,  stripped 
naked.  The  arms,  to  which  a  small  hard  cord  was  fastened, 
were  turned  behind  the  back.  The  cord,  by  the  action  of  a 
pulley,  raised  the  sufferer  off  his  feet  and  held  him  suspended 
m  the  air.  The  victim  of  barbarity  was,  several  times,  let  fall, 
and  raised  with  a  jerk,  which  dislocated  all  the  joints  of  his 
arms  ;  whilst  the  cord,  by  which  he  was  suspended,  entered  the 

1  Deus,  qui  ecclesiam  tuam  beati  Dominici  confessoris  tui  illuminare  dignatus  ea 
meritis  et  doctrinis,  concede  ut  ejus  intercessione,  temporalibus  non  destituatur 
auxiliis.  Miss  Rom.  463.  Brev.  Rom.  906. 

*  Labb.  13.  1236.  et  14.  153.     Velly,  4.  132      Dellon.  c.  2.     Mariana,  4.  362. 

»  Mariana,  4.  362,  363.     Moreri,  5.  130.     Dellon,  c.  13.     Giannon,  XXXII.  5. 


CRUELTIES    OF    THE    INQUISITION.  261 

flesh  and  lacerated  the  tortured  nerves.  Heavy  weights  were 
frequently,  in  this  case,  appended  to  the  feet,  and  when  the 
prisoner  was  raised  from  the  earth  by  the  arms,  strained  the 
whole  frame,  and  caused  a  general  luxation  of  the  shattered 
system.  The  cord  was  sometimes  twisted  round  the  naked 
arm  and  legs,  till  it  penetrated  to  the  bone  through  the  ruptured 
flesh  and  bleeding  veins.1 

This  application  of  the  rack,  without  evidence,  caused  many 
to  be  tortured  who  had  never  committed  the  sin  of  heresy.  A 
young  lady,  who  was  incarcerated  in  the  dungeon  of  the  inqui- 
sition at  the  same  time  with  the  celebrated  Bohorquia,  will 
supply  an  instance  of  this  kind.  This  victim  of  inquisitorial 
brutality,  notwithstanding  her  admitted  attachment  to  Roman- 
ism, endured  the  rack  till  all  the  members  of  her  body  were 
rent  asunder  by  the  infernal  machinery  of  the  holy  office.  An 
interval  of  some  days  succeeded,  till  she  began,  notwithstanding 
such  inhumanity,  to  recover.  She  was  then  taken  back  to  the 
infliction  of  similar  barbarity.  Small  cords  were  twisted  round 
her  naked  arms,  legs,  and  thighs,  till  they  cut  through  the  flesh 
to  the  bone ;  and  blood,  in  copious  torrents,  streamed  from  the 
lacerated  veins.  Eight  days  after,  she  died  of  her  wounds,  and 
was  translated  from  the  dungeons  of  the  inquisition  to  the  glory 
of  heaven. 

The  celebrated  Orobio  endured  the  rack  for  the  sin  of 
Judaism.  His  description  of  the  transaction  is  frightful.  The 
place  of  execution  was  a  subterranean  vault  lighted  with  a  dim 
lamp.  His  hands  and  feet  were  bound  round  with  cords, 
which  were  drawn  by  an  engine  made  for  the  purpose,  till  they 
divided  the  flesh  to  the  excoriated  bone.  His  hands  and  feet 
swelled,  and  blood  burst,  in  copious  effusion,  from  his  nails  as 
well  as  from  his  wounded  limbs.  He  was  then  set  at  liberty, 
and  left  Spain  the  scene  of  persecution  and  misery.2 

The  convicted  were  sentenced  to  an  ACT  of  FAITH.  The 
ecclesiastical  authority  transferred  the  condemned  to  the  secular 
arm,  and  the  clergy  in  the  mean  time,  in  mockery  of  mercy, 
supplicated  the  magistracy  in  a  hypocritical  prayer,  to  shew  com- 
passion to  the  intended  victim  of  barbarity.  But  the  magistracy, 
who,  through  pity,  should  have  deferred  the  execution,  would 
oy  the  relentless  clergy,  have  been  compelled  by  excommuni- 
cation to  proceed  in  the  work  of  death.  The  heretic,  dressed 
in  a  yellow  coat  variegated  with  pictures  of  dogs,,  serpents, 
flames,  and  devils,  was  then  led  to  the  place  of  execution,  tied 
to  the  stake,  and  committed,  amid  the  joyful  acclamations  of 
the  populace,  to  the  flames.  Such  has  been  the  death  of 

1  Limborch,  iv.  29.  2  Moreri,  6.  7.     Limborch,  323. 


262  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

myriads.  Torquemada,  on  being  made  Inquisitor-general, 
burned  alive,  to  signalize  his  promotion  to  the  holy  office,  no 
less  than  two  thousand  of  these  4  sons  of  heresy.'1 

The  inquisition,  in  all  its  horrors,  was  founded  and  fostered 
by  the  whole  Romish  church  or  popish  hierarchy.  Several 
popish  kingdoms  indeed  deprecated  and  expelled  this  enemy 
of  religion  and  man.  The  only  places  in  which  this  tribunal, 
prior  to  the  reformation,  obtained  a  permanent  establishment, 
were  Languedoc,  and  in  modern  times  Spain,  Portugal,  and 
Goa.  The  holy  office,  with  all  its  apparatus  of  inquisitors, 
qualificators,  families,  jailors,  dungeons,  racks,  and  other 
engines  of  torture,  was  driven,  with  indignation  and  ignominy, 
out  of  the  Netherlands,  Hungary,  France,  Germany, 'Poland, 
and  even  Italy.  The  Neapolitans  and  Romans  expelled  the 
inhuman  nuisance  with  determined  resolution.  Spain  itself, 
notwithstanding  its  red-hot  persecutions,  witnessed  a  scene  of 
a  similar  kind.  The  citizens  of  Cordova,  on  one  occasion, 
rose  in  insurrection  against  this  infernal  tribunal,  stormed  the 
palace  of  the  inquisition,  pillaged  its  apartments,  and  im- 
prisoned the  jailor.2 

All  this  opposition,  however,  was  the  work,  not  of  the  priest- 
hood, but  of  the  people.  The  populace  dreaded  its  horrors, 
deprecated  its  cruelty,  and  therefore  prevented  its  establish- 
ment. The  clergy,  on  the  contrary,  have,  with  all  their 
influence,  encouraged  the  institution  in  all  its  inhumanity.  The 
pope  and  the  prelacy,  who,  in  the  Romish  system,  are  the 
chu~ch  and  possess  infallibility,  have,  with  the  utmost  unan- 
iuvty;  declared  in  favor  of  the  holy  office.  No  Roman  pontiff 
or  popish  council  has  ever  condemned  this  foul  blot  on  pre- 
tended Catholicism,  this  gross  insult  on  reason  and  man. 

The  inquisition,  beyond  all  other  institutions  that  ever 
appeared  in  the  world,  evidences  the  deepest  malignancy  of 
human  nature.  Nothing,  in  all  the  annals  of  time,  ever  exhib- 
ited so  appalling  and  hateful  a  view  of  fallen  and  degenerate 
man,  demoralized  to  the  lowest  ebb  of  perversity  by  Romanism 
and  the  popedom.  No  tribunal,  equally  regardless  of  justice 
and  humanity,  ever  raised  its  frightful  form  in  all  the  dominions 
of  Heathenism  or  Mahometanism,  Judaism  or  Christianity. 
The  misanthropist,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  holy  office, 
may  find  continual  and  unfailing  fuel  for  his  malevolence.  He 
may  see,  in  its  victim,  the  wretchedest  sufferer  that  ever 
drained  the  cup  of  misery  ;  and  in  the  inquisitor,  the  hatefullest 

1  On  le  faisoit  publiquement  bruler  vive.  Mariana,  4.  362,  365.  Dellon.  c.  28 
Moreri,  5.  130. 

a  Mariana,  5.  535,  572.  Giannon,  XXXII.  5.  Thuan.  1.  788.  Paolo,  1.  444.  et 
2.  57,  566. 


PERSECUTING    ROMISH    DOCTORS    AND    POPES.  263 

object,  Satan  not  exempted,  that  ever  defiled  or  disgraced  the 
creation  of  God.  No  person,  in  a  future  world,  would  own  an 
inquisitor,  who  dies  in  the  spirit  of  his  profession,  but  the  devil, 
and  no  place  would  receive  him  but  hell. 

Such  is  a  faint  view  of  the  persecutions  which  distracted 
Christendom,  from  the  accession  of  Constantine  till  the  era  of 
the  Reformation.  The  third  period  occupies  the  time  which 
intervened  between  the  Reformation  and  the  present  day.  This 
long  series  of  years  displays  great  variety.  Its  commencement 
was  marked  by  persecution,  which  was  afterwards  repressed 
by  the  diffusion  of  letters,  the  light  of  Revelation,  and  the 
influence  of  Protestantism. 

The  popish  clergy  and  kings  wielded  the  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical power  against  the  Reformation,  during  its  rise  and  pro- 
gress. The  whole  Romish  hierarchy,  through  the  agency  of 
theologians,  popes,  and  councils,  laboured  in  the  work  of  perse- 
cution. The  theologians  and  historians,  who  have  prostituted 
their  pen  for  the  unworthy  purpose,  have  been  many.  From 
this  multitude  may  be  selected  Benedict,  Mariana,  Bellarmine, 
Dens,  the  college  of  Rheims,  and  the  universities  of  Salamanca 
and  Valladolid. 

Benedict  the  Dominican,  in  his  history  of  the  Albigenses, 
approves  of  all  the  inhumanity  of  the  holy  office  and  the  holy 
wars.  The  inquisitor  and  the  crusader  are  the  themes  of  his 
unqualified  applause.  Mariana  the  Jesuit,  in  his  history  of 
Spain,  has,  like  Benedict,  eulogized  persecutions  and  the  inqui- 
sition ;  though  these,  he  admits,  *  are  innovations  on  Chris- 
tianity.' The  historian  recommends  *  fire  and  sword,  when 
mild  means  are  unavailing  and  useless.  A  wise  severity,  in 
such  cases,  is  the  sovereign  remedy.'1 

Bellarmine's  statements,  as  well  as  those  of  Dens,  on  this 
subject,  are  distinguished  by  their  ridiculousness  and  barbarity. 
He  urges,  in  the  strongest  terms,  the  eradication  of  heretics, 
when  it  can  be  effected  with  safety.  Freedom  of  faith,  in  his 
sjrstem,  tends  to  the  injury  of  the  individual  and  of  society  ;  and 
the  abettors  of  heterodoxy  therefore  are,  for  the  honour  of  reli- 
gion, to  be  delivered  to  the  secular  arm  and  consigned  to  the 
flames.  The  cardinal  would  burn  the  body  for  the  good  of  the 
soul.  The  prudent  Jesuit,  however,  would  allow  even  the 
advocates  of  heresy  to  live,  when,  owing  to  their  strength  and 
number,  an  appeal  to  arms  would  be  attended  with  danger  to 
the  friends  of  orthodoxy.  The  apostles,  he  contends,  *  abstained 
from  calling  in  the  secular  arm  only  because  there  were,  in  their 

1  II  faut  recourir  au  fer  et  au  feu  dans  les  maux,  ou  les  remedes  lents  gont  inu 
tiles.     Uu  sage  severite  est  le  remede  souverain.     Mariana,  2-  686. 


264  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

day,  no  Christian  princes.'  This,  in  all  its  horrors,  he  lepresents 
as  the  common  sentiment  of  all  the  patrons  of  Catholicism.1 
His  arguments,  in  favor  of  his  sj^stem,  are  a  burlesque  on  reason 
and  common  sense.  Dens,  patronized  by  the  Romish  clergy  in 
Ireland,  follows  Bellarmine.  He  would  punish  notorious  abet- 
tors of  heresy  with  confiscation  of  property,  exile,  imprisonment, 
death,  and  deprivation  of  Christian  burial.  '  Such  falsifiers  of 
the  faith  and  troublers  of  the  community,'  says  the  precious 
Divine,  *  justly  suffer  death  in  the  same  manner  as  those  who 
counterfeit  money  and  disturb  the  state.'  This,  he  argues,  from 
the  Divine  command  to  slay  the  Jewish  false  prophets,  and 
from  the  condemnation  of  Huss  in  the  council  of  Constance. 

The  college  of  Rheims  commended  the  same  remedy, 
These  doctors,  in  their  annotations,  maintain  that  the  good 
should  tolerate  the  wicked,  when,  in  consequence  of  the  latter's 
strength,  punishment  would  be  attended  with  danger.  But 
heresy  or  any  other  evil,  when  its  destruction  could  be  effected 
with  safety,  should,  according  to  this  precious  exposition,  be 
suppressed  and  its  authors  exterminated.  Such  is  the  instruc- 
tion, conveyed  in  a  popular  commentary  on  the  gospel  of  peace 
and  good  will  to  man.  The  university  of  Salamanca  followed 
the  CL  liege  of  Rheims.  The  doctors  of  this  seminary,  in  1603, 
maintained  'the  Roman  pontiff's  right  to  compel,  by  arms, 
the  sons  of  apostacy  and  the  opponents  of  Catholicism.'  The 
theory  taught  at  Salamanca,  was  also  inculcated  by  the  pro- 
fessors of  Valladolid.2 

These  are  a  few  specimens  of  the  popish  divines,  who  have 
abetted  the  extirpation  of  heresy  by  violence  and  the  inquisi- 
tion. The  list  might  be  augmented  to  almost  any  extent. 
Immense  indeed  is  the  number  of  Romish  doctors,  who,  in  the 
advocacy  of  persecution,  *  have  wearied  eloquence  and  ex- 
hausted learning.' 

Pontiffs,  as  well  as  theologians,  have  enjoined  persecution. 
This  practical  lesson  has,  for  a  thousand  years,  been  uniformly 
taught  in  the  school  of  the  popedom.  The  viceroys  of  heaven 
have,  for  this  long  succession  of  ages,  acted  on  the  same 
satanic  system.  From  these  pontifical  persecutors,  since  the 

1  Libertas  credendi  perniciosa  est.  Libros  haereticorum  jure  interdici  et  exuri. 
Bell.  De  Laic.  III.  18.  Huss  asseruit,  non  licere  haereticum  incorrigibilem  tradere 
•eculari  potestati  et  perarittere  comburendum.  Contrariufti  decent  omnes  Cathol- 
ici.  Bell.  III.  20.  Ecclesia,  zelo  salutis  animarum,  eos  persequitur.  Sunt 
proculdubio  extirpandi.  Bellannin.  1.  1363. 

Haeretici  notorii  privantur  sepultura  ecclesiastica.  Bona  eorum  temporalia  sunt 
ipso  jure  confiscata.  Exilio,  carcere,  &c.  merito  afficiuntur.  Falsarii  pecuniw 
yel  alii  rempublicam  turbantes,  justa  morte  puniuntur:  ergo  etiam  haeretici,  qu: 
•unt  falsarii  fidei  et  rempublicam  graviter  perturbant.  Dens,  2.  88,  89. 

*  Rheim.  Testam.  in  Matth.  XIII.  29.     Mageogh.  3.  595. 


PERSECUTION   OF    PROTESTANTS    BY   CHARLES    V          265 

reformation,  may,  as  a  specimen,  be  selected  the  names  of 
Leo,  Adrian,  Paul,  and  Pius. 

Leo,  in  a  bull  issued  in  1520,  ordered  all  to  shun  Luther  and 
his  adherents.  His  holiness  commanded  sovereigns  to  chase 
the  abettors  of  Lutheranism  out  of  their  dominions.  Adrian, 
in  1522,  deprecated  the  spread  of  Lutheranism,  and  admon- 
ished princes  and  people  against  the  toleration  of  this  abomina- 
tion ;  and,  if  mild  methods  should  be  unavailing,  to  employ  fire 
and  faggot.1 

Paul  the  Fourth  distinguished  himself  by  his  recommenda- 
jion  of  the  inquisition  for  the  extermination  of  heresy.  This 
tribunal,  his  infallibility  accounted  the  sheet-anchor  of  the 
papacy,  and  the  chief  battery  for  the  overthrow  of  heresy. 
The  pontiff  reckoned  the  gospel,  with  all  its  divine  institutions, 
as  nothing,  compared  with  the  holy  office  for  the  defence  of  the 
holy  see.  Paul  was  right.  The  gospel  may  support  the 
church,  but  the  inquisition  is  the  proper  instrument  to  protect 
the  popedom.  The  inquisition,  accordingly,  was  the  darling 
theme  of  his  supremacy's  thoughts.  He  conferred  additional 
authority  on  the  sacred  institution,  and  recommended  it  to  the 
cardinals  and  his  successors  with  his  parting  breath.2  When 
the  cold  hand  of  death  was  pressing  on  his  lips,  and  the  soul 
just  going  to  appear  before  its  God,  he  enjoined  the  use 
of  the  inquisition,  and  expired,  recommending  murder  and 
inhumanity. 

These  enactments  of  doctors  and  pontiffs  were  supported  by 
the  canons  of  councils.  The  council  of  Lyons,  in  1527,  com- 
manded the  suffragans  to  make  diligent  inquiry  after  the 
disseminators  of  heresy,  and  to  appeal,  when  necessary,  to  the 
secular  arm.  Anno  1528,  the  council  of  Sens  enjoined  on 
princes  the  extermination  of  heretics,  in  imitation  of  Constan- 
tine,  Valentinian,  and  Theodosius.3 

The  general  council  of  Trent,  in  the  same  manner,  patron- 
ized persecution.  Ciaconia,  a  Dominican,  preached  before 
this  assembly  on  the  parable  of  the  tares.  The  preacher,  on 
this  occasion,  broached  the  maxim  afterward  adopted  by 
Bellarmine  and  the  Rhemish  annotators.  He  urged  'that  the 
adherents  of  heresy  should  be  tolerated,  when  their  extermina- 
tion would  be  attended  with  danger ;  but  when  their  extirpation 

1  Labb.  19.  1050,  1068.     Du  Pin,  3.  170.     Se  servir  de  remedes  plus  violens,  et 
d'employer  le  feu.     Paolo,  1.  48. 

2  II  donna  toutes  ses  pensees  aux  affaires  de  1'inquisition,  qu'  il  disoit  etre  la 
meilleure  batterie,  qu'on  put  opposer  a  1'heresie,  et  la  principale  defense  du  Saint 
Siege.     Paolo,  2.  45,  51.     Bruys,  4.  636.     Sanctissimum  inquisitionis  officiun?.  quo 
ano  sacne  sedis  auctoritatera  niti  affirrnabat,  commendatum  haberent.     Th'n»n 
XXIII.  15.  Sacne  inquisitionis  tribunali  majorern  auctoritatem  dedit.  Alex.  23.  216 

3  Labb.  19,  1127.  1180.     Du  Pin,  3.  257. 


266  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

can  oe  effected  with  safety,  they  should  be  destroyed  by  fire 
the  sword,  the  gallows,  and  all  other  means.'  All  this, 
Ciaconia  declared,  the  sacred  synod  itself  had  inculcated  in 
its  second  session  :  and  the  Dominican's  sermon  and  declaration 
were  heard  in  the  infallible  assembly  without  objection  or  con- 
tradiction. The  sacred  synod  again,  in  their  last  session, 
admonished  *  all  princes  to  exert  their  influence  to  prevent 
abettors  of  heresy  from  misinterpreting  or  violating  the 
ecclesiastical  decrees,  and  to  oblige  these  objectors,  as  well  as 
all  their  other  subjects,  to  accept  and  to  observe  the  synodal 
canons  with  devotion  and  fidelity.'1  This  was  clearly  an 
appeal  to  the  secular  arm,  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  acquies- 
cence and  submission :  and  the  natural  consequence  of  such 
compulsion  was  persecution. 

The  canon  law  and  the  Roman  ritual  extend  the  spirit  of 
persecution  even  to  the  dead.  The  canor  law  excommunicates 
any,  who,  with  his  knowledge,  bestows  Christian  burial  on 
heretics.  The  Roman  ritual,  also,  published  by  the  command 
of  Paul  the  Fifth,  and  in  general  use  through  the  popish  com- 
munion, '  refuses  sepulchral  honours  to  heretics  and  schismatics.' 
The  offender,  in  this  case,  to  obtain  absolution  and  be  freed 
from  excommunication,  must,  with  his  own  hands  and  in  a 
public  manner,  raise  the  interred  from  the  hallowed  sepulchre.2 
He  must,  to  be  uncursed,  unearth  the  mouldering  remains  of 
the  corpse,  and  violate,  by  an  act  of  horror,  th?  sanctuary  of 
the  tomb. 

The  enactments  of  popes  and  councils  were  sanctioned  and 
enforced  by  emperors  and  kings.  Charles  the  Fifth,  emperor 
of  Germany  and  king  of  Spain  and  the  Netherlands,  persecuted 
the  friends  of  the  reformation  through  his  extensive  dominions. 
His  majesty  in  1521,  supported  by  the  electors  in  the  Diet  of 
Worms,  declared  it  his  duty,  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  honour 
of  the  papacy,  and  the  dignity  of  the  nation,  to  protect  the 
faith  and  extinguish  heresy  ;  and  in  consequence  proscribed 
Luther,  his  followers,  and  books,  and  condemned  all,  who,  in 
any  manner,  should  aid  or  defend  the  Saxon  reformer  or  read 
his  works,  to  the  confiscation  of  their  property,  the  ban  of  the 
empire,  and  the  penalty  of  high-treason.3 

1  On  devoit  les  detruire  par  le  fer,  le  feu,  la  corde,  ou  tout  autre  moyen.  Paolo, 
IV  p.  604. 

Le  concile  eusuite  exhortait  tous  les  princes  &  ne  point  souffrir  quo  ses  decrets 
fussent  violez  par  les  heretiques,  mais  &  les  obliger  aussi  bien  quo  tous  leurs  autret 
sujets  a  les  observer.  Paolo,  2.  660. 

8  Quicunque  haereticos  scienter  praesumpserint  ecclesiastic ae  tradere  sepulturae, 
axcommunicationis  sententiae  se  noverint  subjacere.  Nee  absolutions  beueficium 
mereantur,  nisi  propiis  manibus  publice  extumulent.  Sex.  Decret.  V.  2.  p.  -**50. 
Negutur  ecclesiastica  sepultura  hsereticis,  et  eorum  fautoribus,  schismaticis.  ft:tual. 
Eom.  167.  3  Paolo,  1.  30.  Sleidan,  III.  Du  Pin,  3.  1/f 


MASSACRES    OF    THE    FRENCH    PROTESTANTS.  267 

The  emperor's  edicts  against  the  Lutherans  in  the  Nether- 
lands were  fraught  with  still  greater  severity.  Men  who 
favoured  Lutheranism  were  to  be  beheaded,  and  women  to  be 
buried  alive,  or,  if  obstinate,  to  be  committed  to  the  flames. 
This  law,  however,  was  suspended.  But  inquisitorial  and 
military  executions  rioted  in  the  work  of  death  in  all  its  shocking 
forms.  The  duke  of  Alva  boasted  of  having  caused,  in  six 
weeks,  the  execution  of  eighteen  thousand  for  the  crime  of 
protestantism.  Paolo  reckons  the  number,  who,  in  the  Neth- 
erlands, were,  in  a  few  years,  massacred  on  account  of  their 
religion,  at  fifty  thousand ;  while  Grotius  raises  the  list  of  the 
Belgic  martyrs  to  a  hundred  thousand.1 

Charles  began  the  work  of  persecution  in  Spain,  and  with  his 
latest  breath  recommended  its  completion  to  his  son  Philip  II. 
The  dying  advice  of  the  father  was  not  lost  on  the  Son.  He 
executed  the  infernal  plan  in  all  its  barbarity,  without  shewing 
a  single  symptom  of  compunction  or  mercy.  His  majesty, 
on  his  arrival  in  Spain,  commenced  the  work  of  destruction. 
He  kindled  the  fires  of  persecution  at  Valladolid  and  Seville, 
and  consigned  the  professors  of  protestantism  without  discrimi- 
nation or  pity  to  the  flames.  Among  the  victims  of  his  fury, 
on  this  occasion,  were  the  celebrated  Pontius,  Gonsalvus, 
Vaenia,  Viroesia,  Cornelia,  Bohorquia,  ^Egidio,  Losado,  Arellan, 
and  Arias.  Thirty-eight  of  the  Spanish  nobility  were,  in 
his  presence,  bound  to  the  stake  and  burned.2  Philip  was 
a  spectator  of  these  shocking  scenes,  and  gratified  his  royal 
and  refined  taste  with  these  spectacles  of  horror.  The  inqui- 
sition, since  his  day,  has,  by  relentless  severity,  succeeded 
in  banishing  protestantism  from  the  peninsula  of  Spain  and 
Portugal. 

Francis  and  Henry,  tl^e  French  kings,  imitated  the  example 
of  Charles  and  Philip.  Francis  enacted  laws  against  the  French 
Protestants  ;  and  ordered  the  judges,  under  severe  penalties,  to 
enforce  them  with  rigor.  These  laws  were  renewed  and  new 
ones  issued  by  Henry.  His  most  Christian  Majesty,  in  1549, 
entered  Paris,  made  a  solemn  procession,  declared  his  detesta- 
tion of  protestantism  and  attachment  to  popery,  avowed  his 
resolution  to  banish  the  friends  of  the  reformation  from  his 
dominions  and  to  protect  Catholicism  and  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy.  He  caused  many  Lutherans  to  suffer  martyrdom  in 

1  Poena  in  viros  capitis,  in  foeminas  defossionis  in  terrain,  sin  pertinaces  fuerint 
exustionis.  Thuan.  1.  229.  Brand.  II.  Dansles  Pais  Bas,  lenombre  de  ceux,que 
Ton  avoit  pendus.  decapitez,  brulez,  et  enterrez  vifs,  montat  a  cinquante  inille 
hommes.  Paolo,  2.  52.  Carnificata  hominum  non  minus  centum  millia.  Grotius, 
Annal.  12.  Brand.  IV.  X.  Du  Pin,  3.  656. 

9  Spectante  ipso  Philippo,  XXXVIII  ex  preecipua  regionis  nobilitate  palis  alligati 
ac  cremati  Bunt.  Thuan.  XXIII.  14.  Du  Pin,  3.  655. 


2G8  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Paris,  and  lent  his  royal  assistance  in  person  at  the  execution.1 
Henry,  like  Philip,  had,  on  this  occasion,  an  opportunity  of 
indulging  the  refinement  and  delicacy  of  his  taste,  in  viewing 
the  expiring  struggles  of  his  heretical  subjects  in  the  pangs  of 
dissolution. 

Instances  of  French  persecution  appeared  in  the  massacres 
of  Merindol,  Orange,  and  Paris.  The  massacre  of  Merindol, 
planned  by  the  king  of  France  and  the  parliament  of  Aix,  was 
executed  by  the  president  Oppeda.  The  president  was  com- 
missioned to  slay  the  population,  burn  the  towns,  and  demolish 
the  castles  of  the  Waldenses. 

Oppeda,  thirsting  for  blood,  executed  his  commission  with 
infernal  barbarity.  The  appalling  butchery  has  been  related 
by  the  popish  historians,  Gaufridus,  Moreri,  Paolo,  and  Thuanus 
with  precision  and  impartiality.2  The  president  slaughtered 
more  than  three  thousand  Waldenses,  who,  from  age  to  age, 
have  been  the  object  of  papal  enmity.  Man,  woman,  and  child 
fell  in  indiscriminate  and  relentless  carnage.  Thousands  were 
massacred.  Twenty-four  towns  were  ruined  and  the  country 
left  a  deserted  waste. 

The  massacre  was  so  appalling  that  it  excited  the  horror 
even  of  Gaufridus,  the  Roman  historian  of  these  horrid  transac- 
tions. The  men,  women,  and  children,  in  general,  at  the  ap- 
proach of  the  hostile  army,  fled  to  the  adjoining  woods  and 
mountains.  Old  men  and  women  were  mixed  with  boys  and 
girls.  Many  of  the  weeping  mothers  carried  their  infants  in 
cradles  or  in  their  arms  ;  while  the  woods  and  mountains 
re-echoed  their  groans  and  lamentations.  These  were  pursued 
and  immolated  by  the  sword  of  popish  persecution,  which 
never  knew  pity. 

A  few  remained  in  the  towns  and  met  a  similar  destiny. 
Sixty  men  and  thirty  women  surrendered  in  Capraria,  on  con- 
dition that  their  lives  should  be  spared :  and,  notwithstanding 
plighted  faith,  they  were  taken  to  a  meadow  and  murdered  in 
cold  blood.  Five  hundred  women  were  thrown  into  a  barn, 
which  was  then  set  on  fire  ;  and  when  any  leaped  from  the 
windows,  they  were  received  on  the  points  of  spears  or  hal- 
berts.  The  rest  were  consumed  in  the  flames  or  suffocated 
with  the  smoke. 

The  women  were  subjected  to  the  most  brutal  insults.    Girls 

1  Ce  Prince  fit  executer  plusieurs  Lutheriens  &  Paris,  aux  supplices  desquels  il 
voulut  assister  lui-meme.  II  vouloit  exterminer  de  tout  son  royaurae  les  nnuveaux 
heretiques.  Paolo,  1.  484.  Thuan.  VI.  4.  10. 

3  Gaufrid,  XII.  Moreri,  G.  46.  Thuan.  VI.  16.  Les  troupes  passerent  au  fil  de 
I'  epee  tous  ceux  qui  n'  avoient  pu  s'enfuir,  et  etoient  restez  exposez  a  la  merci 
du  soldat,  sans  distinction  d'  age,  de  qualite,  ni  de  sexe.  On  y  massacra  plus  de 
4000  personnes.  Paolo,  1.  190. 


MASSACRES    OF    ST.    BARTHOLOMEW.  269 

were  snatched  from  the  arms  of  their  mothers,  violated  and 
afterward  treated  with  the  most  shocking  inhumanity.  Mothers 
saw  their  children  murdered  before  their  face,  and  were  then, 
though  fainting  with  grief  and  horror,  violated  by  the  soldiery. 
The  champions  of  the  faith  forced  the  dying  women,  whose 
offspring  had  been  sacrificed  in  their  presence.  Cruelty  suc- 
ceeded violation.  Some  were  precipitated  from  high  rocks ; 
while  others  were  put  to  the  sword  or  dragged  naked  through 
the  streets.1 

The  massacre  was  not  merely  the  work  of  Oppeda  and  the 
soldiery ;  but  approved  by  the  French  king  and  parliament ; 
and  afterward  by  the  popedom,  and  all,  in  general,  who  were 
attached  to  Romanism.  Francis  and  the  city  of  Paris  heard 
the  news  of  the  massacre  with  joy,  and  congratulated  Oppeda 
on  the  victory.  The  parliament  of  Aix  also,  actuated,  like  the 
French  monarch  and  nobility,  with  enmity  against  Waldensian- 
ism,  approved  of  the  carnage,  and  felicitated  the  president  on 
the  triumph. 

The  rejoicing,  on  the  occasion,  was  not  confined  to  the 
French  sovereign  and  people.  The  pope  and  his  court  exulted. 
The  satisfaction  which  was  felt  at  the  extirpation  of  Walden- 
sianism  was,  says  Gaufrid,  in  proportion  to  the  scandal  caused 
by  that  heresy  in  the  church,  by  which  the  historian  means  the 
popedom.  The  friends  of  the  papacy,  therefore,  according  to 
the  same  author,  ;  reckoned  the  fire  and  sword  well  employed, 
which  extinguished  Waldensianism,  and  forgot  nothing  that 
could  immortalize  the  name  of  Oppeda.  Paul  the  Fourth 
made  the  president  Count  Palatine  and  Knight  of  Saint  John  ; 
while  the  partizans  of  Romanism  styled  the  monster,  'the 
defender  of  the  faith,  the  protector  of  the  faithful,  and  the  hero 
of  Christianity.' 2 

The  massacre  of  Orange,  in  1562,  was  attended  with  the 
same  horrors,  as  that  of  Merindol.  This  was  perpetrated 
against  the  protestants,  as  the  other  had  been  against  the 
Waldensians.  Its  horrifying  transactions  have  been  related 
with  impartiality  by  the  popish  historians  Varillas,  Bruys,  and 
Thuanus.3  The  Italian  army,  sent  by  pope  Pius  the  Fourth, 

1  Foeminae  a  furentibus  violates,  et  satiata  libidine   tarn   crudeliter  habifce,   ut 
pleraeque,  sive  ex  animi  moerore,  sive  fame  et  cruciatibus   perierint.     Thuan.  1. 
227.     Cruaut6  alia  jusqu'  a  violer  des  femrnes  mourantes,  et  d'autres,  a  la  veue 
desquelles  on  avoit  egorg6  leurs  enfans.     Gaufride,  2.  480. 

Les  troupes  apres  avoir  rempli  tout  les  pais  de  crimes  et  de  debauches.  Paolo, 
1.  190. 

2  Tous  ceux  de  la  cour  feliciterent  le  premier  President  de  sa  victoire.     Rome  et 
la  Cour  du  Pape  y  prirent  leur  part  Ceux-la  trouverentle  fer  et  le  feu  bien  em 
ployes.     Gaufrid.  2.  481.     Us  le  traiterent  de  deffenseur  de  la  foi,  de  heros  d« 
Christianisme,  et  protecteur  des  fidcle?,     Gaufrid.  2.  494. 

3  Varillas,  HI.     Bruy.  4.  654.     Thuauus,  XXXI.  11. 


270  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

was  commanded  by  Serbellon,  and  slew  man,  woman,  and 
child  in  indiscriminate  carnage.  Infants,  and  even  the  sick, 
were  assassinated  in  cold  blood.  Children  were  snatched 
rrom  the  embraces  of  their  mothers,  and  killed  with  the  blows 
)f  bludgeons. 

The  work  of  death  was  carried  on  by  various  modes  of 
torture  and  brutality.  Some  were  killed  with  the  sword,  and 
some  precipitated  from  the  rock  on  which  the  city  was  built. 
Some  were  hanged  and  others  roasted  over  a  slow  fire.  Many 
were  thrown  on  the  points  of  hooks  and  daggers.  The  sol- 
diery mutilated  the  citizens  in  such  a  shameful  manner  as 
modesty  forbids  to  name.1  Women  with  child  were  suspended 
on  posts  and  gates,  and  their  bowels  let  out  with  knives.  The 
blood,  in  the  meantime,  flowed  in  torrents  through  the  streets. 

Many  of  the  boys  were  forced  to  become  Ganymedes,  and 
to  commit  the  sin  of  Sodom.  The  women,  old  and  young, 
were  violated ;  the  ladies  of  rank  and  accomplishments  were 
abandoned  to  the  will  of  the  ruffian  soldiery ;  and  afterward 
exposed  to  the  public  laughter,  with  horns  and  stakes  thrust 
into  the  body  in  such  a  manner  as  decency  refuses  to  describe.* 

The  massacre  of  Paris,  in  1572,  on  Bartholomew's  day, 
equalled  those  of  Merindol  and  Orange  in  barbarity,  and  ex- 
celled both  in  extent.  The  facts  have  been  detailed  with  great 
impartiality  by  Bossuet,  Daniel,  Davila,  Thuanus,  and  Meze- 
ray.3  The  queen  laid  this  plan,  which  had  been  two  years 
preconcerted,  for  the  extinction  of  heresy.  The  execution  was 
entrusted  to  the  Duke  of  Guise,  who  was  distinguished  by  his 
inhumanity  and  hatred  of  the  Reformation.  The  duke,  on  the 
occasion,  was  aided  by  the  soldiery,  the  populace,  and  the 
king.  The  military  and  the  people  attached  to  Romanism 
thirsted  for  the  blood  of  the  Hugonots.  His  most  Christian 
majesty,  Charles  the  Ninth,  attacked,  in  person,  his  unresisting 
subjects  with  a  gun,  and  *  shouted  with  all  his  might,  KILL, 
KILL.'**  One  man,  if  he  deserve  the  name,  boasted  of  having, 
in  one  night,  killed  a  hundred  and  fifty,  and  another  of  having 
slain  four  hundred. 

1  Us  prirent  plaisir  &  couper  les  parties  secretes.     Varillas,  1.  203. 

2  Pueri  multi  item  rapti,  et  ad  nefandam  libidinem  satiandam  ad  miseram  cap- 
tivitatera  abducti.    Thuan.  2.  228. 

Les  dames  furent  exposf-es  nues  a  la  risee  publique,  avec  des  comes  enfoncees 
dans  les  parties,  que  la  pndeur  defend  de  nominer.  Varillas,  1.  203.  Productis 
mulierum  cadaveribus,  et  in  eorum  pudenda  bourn  cornibus,  et  saxis,  ac  stipitibus 
ad  ludibrium  injectis.  Thuan.  2.  228.  Exudante  passim  per  urbem  cruore. 
Thuan.  31.  11. 

3  Bossuet,  Abre?.  XVII.     Daniel,  8.  727—740.     Mezeray,  5. 151—162.     Davila, 
V.  Mezeray,  5.  151—162. 

4  II  dechargea  sur  les  Calvinistea.     Sully,  1.  34. 

Le  Roi  tiroit  sur  eux  lui-meme  avec  de  tongues  arquebuses,  et  crioit,  de  touto 
sa  force,  'tuez,  taez.'  Dan.  8.  731.  Mezeray,  5.  155.  Davila,  V. 


MASSACRES  OF  ST.  BARTHOLOMEW.  271 

The  tocsin,  at  midnight,  tolled  the  signal  of  destruction.  .The 
assailants  spared  neither  old  nor  young,  man  nor  woman.  The 
carnage  lasted  seven  days.  Mezeray  reckons  the  killed,  in 
Paris,  during  this  time,  at  5000,  Bossuet  at  more  than  6000, 
and  Davila  at  10,000,  among  whom  were  five  or  six  hundred 
gentlemen.  The  Seine  was  covered  with  the  dead  which  floated 
on  its  surface,  and  the  city  was  one  great  butchery  and  flowed 
with  human  blood.  The  court  was  heaped  with  the  slain,  on 
which  the  king  and  queen  gazed,  not  with  horror,  but  with 
delight.  Her  \najesty  unblushingly  feasted  her  eyes  on  the 
spectacle  of  thousands  of  men,  exposed  naked,  and  lying 
wounded  and  frightful  in  the  pale  livery  of  death.1  The  king 
went  to  see  the  body  of  Admiral  Coligny,  which  was  dragged 
by  the  populace  through  the  streets  ;  and  remarked  in  unfeel- 
ing witticism,  that  the  '  smell  of  a  dead  enemy  was  agreeable., 

The  tragedy  was  not  confined  to  Paris,  but  extended,  in 
general,  through  the  French  nation.  Special  messengers  were, 
on  the  preceding  day,  despatched  in  all  directions,  ordering  a 
general  massacre  of  the  Hugonots.  The  carnage,  in  conse- 
quence, was  made  through  nearly  all  the  provinces,  and  espe- 
cially in  Meaux,  Troyes,  Orleans,  Nevers,  Lyons,  Toulouse, 
Bordeaux,  and  Rouen.  Twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  accord- 
ing to  Bossuet  and  Mezeray,  perished  in  different  places. 
Davila  estimates  the  slain  at  40,000,  and  Sully  at  70,000. 
Many  were  thrown  into  the  rivers,  which,  floated  the  corpses 
on  the  waves,  carried  horror  and  infection  to  all  the  country, 
which  they  watered  with  their  streams. 

The  reason  of  this  waste  of  life  was  enmity  to  heresy  or 
protestantism.  A  few  indeed  suggested  the  pretence  of  a  con- 
spiracy. But  this,  even  Bossuet  grants,  every  person  knew  to 
be  a  mere  pretence.  The  populace,  tutored  by  the  priesthood, 
accounted  themselves,  in  shedding  heretica,!  blood,  '  the  agents 
of  Divine  justice,'  and  engaged  '  in  doing  God  service.'2  The 
king  accompanied  with  the  queen  and  princes  of  the  blood,  and 
all  the  French  court,  went  to  the  Parliament,  and  acknowledged 
that  all  these  sanguinary  transactions  were  done  by  his  autho- 
rity. *  The  parliament  publicly  eulogised  the  king's  wisdom,' 
which  had  effected  the  effusion  of  so  much  heretical  blood.  His 

1  Tout  le  quartier  ruisseloit  de  sang.  La  cour  etoit  pleine  de  corps  morts,  que 
}e  Roi  et  la  Reine  regardoient,  non  seulement  sans  horreur,  mais  avec  plaisir.  Tout 
les  rues  de  la  ville  n'etoient  plus  que  boucheries.  Bossuet,  4.  537.  On  exposa 
leurs  corps  tout  nuds  a  la  porte  du  Louvre,  la  Reine  mere  etant  4  une  fenestre, 
qui  repaisoit  sea  yeux  de  cet  horrible  spectacle.  Mezeray,  5.  157.  Davila,  V, 
Thuan.  II  8. 

Frequentes  e  gyno3ceo  foeminas,  nequaquam  crudeli  spectaculo  eas  absterrente, 
curiosis  oculis  iiudorum  corpora  inverecunde  intuebantur.  Thuan.  3.  131. 

3  Les  Catholiques  se  regarderent  comrae  les  executeurs  de  la  justice  de  Dietu 
Daniel,  8  738.  Thuan.  3.  149. 


272  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

majesty  also  went  to  mass,  and  returned  solemn  thanks  to  God 
for  the  glorious  victory  obtained  over  heresy.  He  ordered 
medals  to  be  coined  to  perpetuate  its  memory.  A  medal  ac- 
cordingly was  struck  for  the  purpose  with  this  inscription,  PIE  TV 
EXCITED  JUSTICE.1  Piety,  forsooth,  propelled  to  murder, 
and  the  immolation  of  forty  thousand  people  was  an  act  of  jus- 
tice. Piety  and  justice,  it  seems,  aroused  to  deeds  of  cruelty, 
the  idea  of  which  afterwards,  says  Sully,  caused  even  the  inhu- 
man perpetrator  Charles,  in  spite  of  himself,  to  shudder. 

The  carnage,  sanctioned  in  this  manner  by  the  French  king, 
parliament,  and  people,  was  also  approved  by  the  pope  and  the 
Roman  court.  Rome  '  from  her  hatred  of  heresy,  received  the 
news  with  unspeakable  joy.  The  pope  went  in  procession  to 
the  church  of  Saint  Lewis,  to  render  thanks  to  God  for  the 
happy  victory.'  His  Legate  in  France  felicitated  his  most 
Christian  majesty  in  the  pontiff's  name, '  arid  praised  the  exploit, 
so  long  meditated  and  so  happily  executed,  for  the  good  of 
religion.'  The  massacre,  says  Mezeray,  '  was  extolled  before 
the  king  as  the  triumph  of  the  church.'  2 

Spain  rejoiced  also  in  the  tragedy  as  the  defeat  of  protestant- 
ism. This  nation  has  ever  shown  itself  the  friend  of  the 
papacy,  and  the  deadly  enemy  of  the  Reformation :  and  this 
spirit,  on  this  occasion,  appeared  in  the  joy  manifested  by  the 
Spanish  people  for  the  murder  of  the  French  Hugonots. 

England,  like  Germany,  France,  Spain,  and  the  Netherlands, 
was  the  scene  of  persecution  and  martyrdom.  Philip  and 
Mary,  who  exercised  the  royal  authority  in  the  British  nation, 
issued  a  commission  for  '  the  burning  of  heretics.'  The  queen, 
in  this  manifesto,  '  professed  her  resolution  to  support  justice 
and  Catholicism,  and  to  eradicate  error  and  heresy :  and 
ordered  her  heretical  subjects,  therefore,  to  be  committed 
before  the  people  to  the  flames.'  This,  her  majesty  alleged, 
would  shew  her  detestation  of  heterodoxy,  and  serve  as  an 
example  to  other  Christians,  to  shun  the  contagion  of  heresy.3 

Orleans  acknowledges  Mary's  rigour,  and  her  execution  of 

1  Pietas  excitavit  justitiam.  II  fit  frapper  un  medaille  A  1'occasion  de  la  Saint 
Barthelemi.  Daniel,  8  786.  Apres  avoir  oui  solemnellement  la  messe  pour 
remercier  Dieu  de  la  belle  victoire  obtenue  sur  I'heresie,  et  commande  de  fabri- 
(juer  des  medailles  pour  en  conserver  lamemoire.  Mezeray,  5.  160.  II  fretnissoit 
inulqre  lui,  au  recit  de  inille  traits  de  cruaute.  Sully,  1.  33. 

-  La  haine  de  1'  heresie  les  fit  recevoir  agreablement  a  Rome.  On  ee  rejouit 
amsi  en  Espagne.  Bossuet,  4  545.  La  Cour  de  Rome  et  le  Conseil  d'  Espagne 
eurent  line  joye  indicible  de  la  Saint  Bartelemy.  Le  Pape  alia  en  procession  d 
1'eglise  de  Saint  Louis,  rendre  graces  a  Dieu  d'un  si  heureux  sueces,  et  1'on  fit  le 
panegyrique  de  cette  action  sous  le  nom  de  Triomphe  de  1'  Eglise.  Mezeray,  5. 
162.  Sullj,  1.27. 

3  HaTeticos  juxta  legem,  ignis  inccndio  comburi  debere ;  praecipimus,  quod 
prafatos  coram  populo  igni  committi.  et  in  eodem  igne  realiter  comburi  facias. 
Wilkin,  4.  177. 


POPISH    PERSECUTIONS    IN    ENGLAND.  273 

many  on  account  of  their  protestantism.  In  this,  he  discovers, 
the  queen  foUowed  her  own  genius  rather  than  the  spirit  of  the 
church,  by  which  he  means  the  popedom.  This  historian, 
nevertheless,  represents  Mary  as  '  worthy  of  eternal  remem- 
brance for  her  zeal.' 1  Such  is  his  character  of  a  woman  who 
was  a  modern  Theodora,  and  never  obliged  the  world  but 
when  she  died.  Her  death  was  the  only  favour  she  ever  con- 
ferred on  her  unfortunate  and  persecuted  subjects. 

Popish  persecution  raged,  in  this  manner,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Reformation  till  its  establishment.  The 
flow  of  this  overwhelming  tide  began  at  the  accession  of 
Constantine  to  the  throne  of  the  Roman  empire :  and,  having 
prevailed  for  a  long  period,  gradually  ebbed  after  the  era  of 
protestantism.  The  popedom,  on  this  topic,  was  compelled, 
though  with  reluctance  and  inconsistency,  to  vary  its  profession 
and  practice.  A  change  was  effected  in  an  unchangeable 
communion.  Some  symptoms  of  the  old  disease  indeed  still 
appear.  The  spirit,  like  latent  heat,  is  inactive  rather  than 
extinguished.  But  the  general  cry  is  for  liberality  or  even 
latitudinarianism.  The  shout,  even  among  the  advocates  of 
Romanism,  is  in  favor  of  religious  liberty,  unfettered  con- 
science, and  universal  toleration.  The  inquisition  of  Spain 
and  Portugal,  with  all  its  apparatus  of  racks,  wheels,  and 
gibbets,  has  lost  its  efficacy,  and  its  palace  at  Goa  is  in  ruins. 
The  bright  sun  of  India  enlightens  its  late  dungeons,  which 
are  now  inhabited,  not  by  the  victim  of  popish  persecution,  but 
by  'the  owl,  the  dragon,  and  the  wild  beast  of  the  desert.' 

This  change  has,  in  some  measure,  been  influenced  by  the 
diffusion  of  literature  and  the  Reformation.  The  darkness  of 
the  middle  ages  has  fled  before  the  light  of  modern  science : 
and  with  it,  in  part,  has  Disappeared  priestcraft  and  supersti- 
tion. Philosophy  has  improved,  and  its  light  continues  to  gain 
on  the  empire  of  darkness.  Protestantism  has  circulated  the 
Book  of  God,  and  shed  its  radiancy  over  a  benighted  world. 
The  advances  of  literature  and  revelation  have  been  unfavour- 
able to  the  reign  of  intolerance  and  the  inquisition. 

But  the  chief  causes  of  this  change  in  the  papacy  are  the 
preponderance  of  protestantism  and  the  policy  of  popery.  The 
Reformation,  in  its  liberalizing  principles,  is  established  over  a 
great  part  of  Christendom.  Its  friends  have  become  nearly 
equal  to  its  opponents  in  number,  and  far  superior  in  intelli- 
gence and  activity.  Rome,  therefore,  though  she  has  not  ex- 
pressly disavowed  her  former  claims,  has  according  to  her 

1  Reine  digne  d'une  memoire  eternelle,  per  son  zele.  On  en  fit,  en  efiet,  mount 
un  grand  nombra  Orleans,  VIII.  F  174,  175. 

18 


THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

ancient  policy,  allowed  these  lofty  pretensions  to  slumber  for  a 
time  in  inactivity,  and  yielded,  though  with  reluctant  and 
awkward  submission,  to  the  progress  of  science,  the  light  of 
revelation,  and  the  strength  of  protestantism. 

A  late  discovery  has  shewn  the  deceitfulness  of  all  popish 
pretences  to  liberality,  both  on  the  continent  and  in  Ireland. 
Dens,  a  doctor  of  Lou  vain,  published  a  system  of  theology  in 
1758,  and  in  some  of  the  succeeding  years.  This  work,  fraught 
with  the  most  revolting  principles  of  persecution,  awards  to  the 
patrons  of  heresy,  confiscation  of  goods,  banishment  from  the 
country,  confinement  in  prison,  infliction  of  death,  and  depri- 
vation of  Christian  burial.  Falsifiers  of  the  Faith,  like  forgers 
of  money  and  disturbers  of  the  state,  this  author  would,  accord- 
ing to  the  sainted  Thomas,  consign  to  death  as  the  proper  and 
merited  penalty  of  their  offence.  This,  he  argues  from  the 
sentence  of  the  Jewish  false  prophets,  and  from  the  condemna- 
tion of  Huss  in  the  general  council  of  Constance.1 

This  production  in  all  its  horror  and  deformity,  was  dedi- 
cated to  Cardinal  Philippus,  and  recommended  to  Christendom 
by  the  approbation  of  the  University  of  Lou  vain,  which 
vouched  for  its  *  orthodox  faith  and  its  Christian  morality.'  It 
was  ushered  into  the  world  with  the  permission  of  superiors, 
and  the  full  sanction  of  episcopal  authority.  Its  circulation  on 
the  continent  was,  even  in  the  nineteenth  century,  impeded  by 
no  Romish  reclamation,  nor  by  the  appalling  terrors  of  the 
expurgatorian  index.  The  popish  clergy  and  people,  in  silent 
consent  or  avowed  approbation,  acknowledged,  in  whole  and 
in  part,  its  Catholicism  and  morality.2 

The  University  of  Louvain,  on  this  occasion,  exhibited  a 
beautiful  specimen  of  Jesuitism.  A  few  years  after  its  appro- 
bation of  Dens'  Theology,  Pitt,  the  British  statesman,  asked 
this  same  university,  as  well  as  those  of  Salamanca  and 
Valladolid,  whether  persecution  were  a  principle  of  Romanism. 
TL^  astonished  doctors,  insulted  at  the  question,  and  burning 
with  ardour  to  obliterate  the  foul  stain,  branded  the  insinuation 
with  a  loud  and  deep  negation.  The  former,  in  this  case, 
copied  the  example  of  the  latter.  The  divines  of  Salamanca 
and  Valladolid,  questioned  on  the  same  subject  in  1603,  in 

1  An  hacretici  recte  puniuntur  morte?  Respondet  S.  Thomas  affirmative  :  quia 
falsarii  pecunise  vel  alii  rempublicam  turbantes  juste  morte  puniuntur:  ergo  etiam 
hieretici  qui  sunt  falsarii  fidei  et  rempublicam  graviter  perturbant. 

Confirmatur  ex  eo  quod  Dens  in  veteri  lege  jusserit  occidi  falsos  Prophetas. 

Idem  probatur  ex  condemnatione  articuli  14,  Joan.  Huss  in  Concilio  Constant!- 
f.nsi.  Dens,  2.  88,  89. 

Haeretici  notorii  privantur  sepultura  ecclesiastica.     Bona.  &c.     Dens,  2.  88. 

*  Dens,  4.  3.  Eas  reperi  nihil  continere  a  fide  orthodoxa  et  moribus  Chrislinnis 
ttlienum.  Dens,  5.  1.  Home's  Protest.  Mem.  95,  96. 


PERSECUTING    PRINCIPLES    OF    DENS*    THEOLOGY.          275 

reference  to  the  war  waged  by  the  Irish  against  the  English  in 
the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth,  patronized  the  principle  of  perse- 
cution, which,  in  their  answer  to  Pitt,  they  proscribed.1  Such, 
on  the  European  continent,  were  the  candour  and  consistency 
of  the  popish  clergy,  who,  in  this  manner,  adapted  their  move- 
ments, like  skilful  generals,  to  the  evolutions  of  the  enemy,  and 
suited  their  tactics  to  the  emergency  of  the  occasion. 

This  complete  body  of  theology,  unconfined  to  the  continent, 
was,  in  a  special  manner,  extended  to  Ireland.  The  popish 
prelacy,  in  1808,  met,  says  Coyne  and  Wise,  in  Dublin,  and 
unanimously  agreed  that  this  book  was  the  best  work,  and 
safest  guide  in  theology  for  the  Irish  clergy.  Coyne,  in  conse- 
quence, was  ordered  to  publish  a  large  edition,  for  circulation 
among  the  prelacy  and  priesthood  of  the  kingdom.' 2 

The  work  was  dedicated  to  Doctor  Murray,  Titular  Arch- 
bishop of  Dublin.  The  same  prelate  also  sanctioned  an  addi- 
tional volume,  which  was  afterwards  annexed  to  the  performance 
with  his  approbation.  Murray,  Doyle,  Keating,  and  Kinsella 
made  it  the  conference  book  for  the  Romish  clergy  of  Leinster. 
The  popish  ordo  or  directory,  for  five  successive  years,  had  its 
questions  for  conference  arranged  as  they  occurred  in  Dens, 
and  were,  of  course,  to  be  decided  by  his  high  authority.  The 
Romish  episcopacy,  in  this  way,  made  this  author  theii 
standard  of  theology  to  direct  the  Irish  prelacy  and  priesthood 
in  casuistry  and  speculation.3  Dens,  therefore,  possesses,  with 
them,  the  same  authority  on  popish  theology  as  Blackstone 
with  us,  on  the  British  Constitution,  or  the  Bible  on  the  princi- 
ples of  protestantism. 

Accompanied  with  such  powerful  recommendations,  the 
work,  as  might  be  expected,  obtained  extensive  circulation. 
The  college  of  Maynooth,  indeed,  did  not  raise  Dens  to  a 
text-book.  This  honour  was  reserved  for  Bailly.  But  this 
seminary  received  Dens  as  a  work  of  reference.  His  theology 
lay  in  the  library,  ready,  at  any  time,  for  consultation.  Doctor 
Murphy's  academy  in  Cork  had  fifty  or  sixty  copies  for  the 
use  of  the  seminary  and  the  diocesan  clergy.4  The  precious 
production,  indeed,  has  found  its  way  into  the  nands  of  almost 
every  priest  in  the  kingdom,  and  forms  the  holy  fountain  from 
which  he  draws  the  pure  waters  of  the  sanctuary. 

The  days  of  persecution,  notwithstanding,  will,  in  all  proba- 

1  Tanquam  certum  est  accipiendum,  posse  Romanum  Pontific em  fidei  desertores, 
et  eos  qui  Catholicam  religionem  oppugnant,  annis  compellere.  Mageogh.  3.  595. 
Slevin,  193. 

9  Coyne,  Catal.  6,  7.  Wyse,  Hist.  Oath.  Ass.  App.  N.  7.  Home's  Protest. 
Mem.  95. 

3  Reverendissimo  in  Deo,  Patri  ac  Domino,  Danieli  Murray,  &c.  Dens,  I.  1, 
Coyne,  7.  Home,  95,  96.  «  Home,  95,  96. 

18* 


276  THE    VARIATIONS    OP    POPERY. 

bility,  never  return  to  dishonor  Christianity  and  curse  mankind, 
The  inquisition,  with  all  its  engines  of  torment  and  destruction, 
may  rest  for  ever  in  inactivity.  The  Inquisitor  may  exercise 
his  malevolence,  and  vent  his  ferocity  in  long  and  deep  execra- 
tions against  the  growing  light  of  philosophy  and  the  reforma- 
tion ;  but  will  never  more  regale  his  ears  with  the  groans  of 
the  tortured  victim,  or  feast  his  eyes  in  witnessing  an  Act  of 
Faith.  The  popedom  may  regret  its  departed  power.  The 
Roman  pontiff  and  hierarchy  may  indulge  in  dreams  of  future 
greatness,  prefer  vain  prayers  for  the  restoration  of  persecution, 
or,  in  bitter  lamentation,  weep  over  the  ashes  of  the  inquisition. 
But  these  hopes,  supplications,  and  tears,  in  all  likelihood,  will, 
for  ever,  be  unavailing.  Rome's  spiritual  artillery  is,  in  a  great 
measure,  become  useless ;  and  the  secular  arm  no  longer,  as 
formerly,  enforces  ecclesiastical  denunciations,  or  consigns  the 
abettors  of  heresy  to  the  flames. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


INVALIDATION   OF    OATHS. 

VIOLATION   OF   FAITH — THEOLOGIANS,    POPES,   AND    COUNCILS — PONTIFICAL   MAXIM* 
PONTIFICAL     ACTIONS — COUNCILS    OF     ROME     AND      DIAMPER — COUNCILS     OF     TJ«« 
LATERAN,     LYONS,     PISA,    CONSTANCE,    AND    BASIL. — ERA   AND   INFLUENCE    OF   THK 
REFORMATION. 

THE  Roman  pontiffs,  unsatisfied  with  the  sovereignty  over 
kings  and  heretics,  aimed,  with  measureless  ambition,  at  loftier 
pretensions  and  more  extensive  domination.  These  vice-gods 
extended  their  usurpation  into  the  moral  world  and  invaded 
the  empire  of  heaven.  The  power  of  dissolving  the  obligation 
of  vows,  promises,  oaths,  and  indeed  ah1  engagements,  especially 
those  injurious  to  the  church  and  those  made  with  the  patrons 
of  heresy,  was,  in  daring  blasphemy,  arrogated  by  those  vice- 
gerents of  God.  This  involves  the  shocking  maxim,  that  faith, 
contrary  to  ecclesiastical  utility,  may  be  violated  with  heretics. 
The  popedom,  in  challenging  and  exercising  this  authority,  has 
disturbed  the  relations  which  the  Deity  established  in  His  ra- 
tional creation,  and  grasped  at  claims  which  tend  to  unhinge 
civil  society  and  disorganize  the  moral  world. 

Christendom,  on  this  topic,  has  witnessed  three  variations. 
The  early  Christians  disclaimed,  in  loud  indignation,  the  idea  of 
perfidy.  Fidelity  to  contracts  constituted  a  distinguished  trait 
in  the  Christianity  of  antiquity.  A  second  era  commenced 
with  the  dark  ages.  Faithlessness,  accompanied  with  all  its 
foul  train,  entered  on  the  extinction  of  literature  and  philosophy, 
and  became  one  of  the  filthy  elements  of  Romish  superstition. 
The  abomination,  under  the  patronage  of  the  papacy,  flourished 
till  the  rise  of  protestantism.  The  reformation  formed  a  third 
era,  and  poured  a  flood  of  light,  which  detected  the  demon  of 
insincerity  and  exposed  it  to  the  detestation  of  the  world. 

Fidelity  to  all  engagements  constituted  one  grand  character- 
istic of  primeval  Christianity.  Violation  of  oaths  and  promises 
is,  beyond  all  question,  an  innovation  on  the  Christianity  of 
antiquity,  and  forms  one  of  the  variations  of  Romanism.  The 
attachment  to  truth  and  the  faithfulness  to  compacts,  evinced 


278  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

by  tne  ancient  Christians,  were  proverbial.  The  Christian 
profession,  in  the  days  of  antiquity,  was  marked  by  a  lofty 
sincerity,  which  disdained  all  falsehood,  dissimulation,  subter- 
fuge, and  chicanery.  Death,  say  Justin  and  Tertullian,  would 
have  been  more  welcome  than  the  violation  of  a  solemn  promise. 
A  Roman  bishop,  in  those  days  of  purity,  would  have  met  an 
application  for  absolution  from  an  oath  with  holy  indignation ; 
and  the  humblest  of  his  flock,  who  should  have  been  supposed 
capable  of  desiring  such  a  dispensation,  would  have  viewed 
the  imputation  as  an  insult  on  his  understanding  and  profession. 

But  the  period  of  purity  passed,  and  the  days  of  degeneracy, 
at  the  era  of  the  dark  ages,  entered.  The  mystery  of  iniquity, 
in  process  of  time,  and  as  Paul  of  Tarsus  had  foretold,  began 
to  work.  Christianity,  by  adulteration,  degenerated  into 
Romanism,  and  the  popedom  became  the  hot-bed  of  all  abomi- 
nation. Dispensations  for  violating  the  sanctity  of  oaths 
formed  perhaps  the  most  frightful  feature  in  the  moral  deformity 
of  popery.  This  shocking  maxim  was,  for  many  ages,  sanc- 
tioned by  theologians,  canonists,  popes,  councils,  and  the  whole 
Romish  communion. 

The  theologians  and  canonists,  who  have  inculcated  this 
frightful  maxim,  are  many.  A  few  may  be  selected  as  a 
specimen. '  Such  were  Bailly,  Dens,  Cajetan,  Aquinas,  Ber- 
nard, the  Parisian  university,  and  the  French  clergy. 

Bailly,  in  the  class-book  used  in  the  Maynooth  seminary, 
ascribes  to  *  the  church  a  power  of  dispensing  in  vows  and 
oaths.' J  This  the  author  attempts  to  shew  from  the  words  of 
Revelation,  which  confer  the  prerogative  of  the  keys  in  binding 
and  loosing,  and  which,  he  concludes,  being  general,  signify 
not  only  the  power  of  absolving  from  sin,  but  also  from  promises 
and  oaths.  The  moral  theologian,  in  this  manner,  abuses  the 
inspired  language  for  the  vilest  purpose,  and  represents  his 
shocking  assumption  as  taught  in  the  Bible  and  as  an  article  of 
faith.  The  church,  in  this  hopeful  proposition,  means  the 
Roman  pontiff,  whom  the  canon  law  characterizes  as  the  inter- 
preter of  an  oath. 

Dens,  in  his  theology,  the  modern  standard  of  Catholicism  in 
Ireland,  authorizes  this  maxim.2  The  dispensation  of  a  vow, 

1  Existit  in  ecclesia  potestas  dispensandi  in  votis  et  juramentis.  Bailly,  2.  140. 
Maynooth  Report,  283. 

Declaratio  juramenti  seu  interpretatio,  cum  de  ipso  dubitatur,  pertinet  ad 
Papam.  Gibert,  3.  512. 

3  Superior,  tanquam  vicarius  Dei,  vice  et  nomine  Dei,  remittit  homini  debitum 
promissionis  factse.  Dens,  4.  134,  135. 

Debet  respondere  se  nescire  earn,  et,  si  opus  eat,  idem  juramento  confirmare. 
Talis  confessarius  interrogatur  ut  homo,  et  respondet  ut  homo.  Jam  autem  non 
icit  ut  homo  illam  veritatem,  quamvis  sciat  ut  Deus.  Dens,  6.  219. 


VIOLA1ION    OF    FAITH    TAUGHT    BY    ROMISH    DOCTORS.     279 

says  this  criterion  of  truth,  '  is  its  relaxation  by  a  lawful  su 
perior  in  the  place  of  God,  from  a  just  cause.  The  superior, 
as  the  vicar  of  God  in  the  place  of  God,  remits  to  a  man  the 
debt  of  a  plighted  promise.  God's  acceptance,  by  this  dispen- 
sation, ceases:  for  it  is  dispensed  in  God's  name.'  The 
precious  divine,  in  this  manner,  puts  man  in  the  stead  of  God, 
and  enables  a  creature  to  dissolve  the  obligation  of  a  vow. 

A  confessor,  the  same  doctor  avers,  '  should  assert  his  igno- 
rance of  the  truths  which  he  knows  only  by  sacramental  con- 
fession, and  confirm  his  assertion,  if  necessary,  by  oath.  Such 
facts  he  is  to  conceal,  though  the  life  or  safety  of  a  man  or  the 
destruction  of  the  state,  depended  on  the  disclosure.'  The 
reason,  in  this  case,  is  as  extraordinary  as  the  doctrine.  *  The 
confessor  is  questioned  and  answers  as  a  man.  This  truth, 
however,  he  knows  not  as  man,  but  as  God ;'  and.  therefore, 
which  was  to  be  proved — he  is  not  guilty  of  falsehood  or 
perjury. 

Cajetan  teaches  the  same  maxim.  According  to  the  cardi- 
nal, '  the  sentence  of  excommunication  for  apostacy  from  the 
faith  is  no  sooner  pronounced  against  a  king,  than,  in  fact,  his 
subjects  are  freed  from  his  dominion  and  oath.1 

Aquinas,  though  a  Saint,  and  worshipped  in  the  popish  com- 
munion on  the  bended  knee,  maintains  the  same  shocking 
principle.  He  recommends  the  same  Satanic  maxim  to  sub- 
jects, whose  sovereign  becomes  an  advocate  of  heresy.  Ac- 
cording to  his  angelic  saintship,  "  when  a  king  is  excommuni- 
cated for  apostacy,  his  vassals  are,  in  fact,  immediately  freed 
from  his  dominion  and  from  their  oath  of  fealty :  for  a  heretic 
cannot  govern  the  faithful."  Such  a  prince  is  to  be  deprived  of 
authority,  and  his  subjects  freed  from  the  obligation  of  allegi- 
ance. This  is  the  doctrine  of  a  man  adored  by  the  patrons  of 
Romanism  for  his  sanctity.  He  enjoined  the  breach  of  faith 
and  the  violation  of  a  sworn  engagement:  and  is  cited  for 
authority  on  this  point  by  Dens,  the  idol  of  the  popish  prelacy 
in  Ireland.2 

Bernard,  the  celebrated  Glossator  on  the  canon-law,  advances 
the  same  principle.  A  debtor,  says  the  canonist  of  Parma, 
"  though  sworn  to  pay,  may  refuse  the  claim  of  a  creditor  who 
falls  into  heresy  or  under  excommunication."  According  to 
the  same  authority,  "  the  debtor's  oath  implies  the  tacit  condi- 

1  Quam  cito  aliquis  per  sententiam  denunciator  excommunicatus  propter  apos- 
tasiam  a  fide,  ipso  facto  ejus  subditi  sunt  absoluti  adominio  et  juramento.    Cajetan 
in  Aquin.  2.  50. 

2  Quam  cito  aliquis  per  sententiam  denunciator  excommunicatus,  propter   apos- 
tasiam  a  fide,  ipso  facto,  ejus  subditi  a  dominio  et  juramento  fidelitatis  ejus  liberati 
aunt,  quod  subditis  fidelibus  dominari  non  possit.     Aquinas,  2.  50. 


280  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

tiori  that  the  creditor,  to  be  entitled  to  payment,  should  remain 
in  a  state  in  which  communication  with  him  would  be  lawful."1 

The  Parisian  University,  in  1589,  consisting  of  sixty  doctors, 
declared  the  French  entirely  freed  from  their  oath  of  allegiance 
to  their  king,  Henry  the  Third,  and  authorized  to  take  arms 
against  their  sovereign,  on  account  of  his  opposition  to  Catholi- 
cism.2 

The  French  clergy,  in  1577,  even  after  the  reformation, 
taught  the  same^infernal  maxim.  The  Hugonots  "  insisted  on 
the  faith  which  the  French  nation  had  plighted  in  a  solemn 
treaty.  The  Romish  theologians,  on  the  contrary,  rejected  the 
plea,  and  contended  in  their  sermons  and  public  writings,  that 
a  prince  is  not  bound  to  keep  faith  with  the  partizans  of 
heresy."  These  advocates  of  treachery  and  perjury  pleaded 
on  the  occasion,  the  precedent  of  the  Constantian  council, 
which,  in  opposition  to  a  safe-conduct,  had  sacrificed  Huss  and 
Jerome  to  the  demon  of  popery.5 

This  atrocious  maxim  was  taught  by  popes,  as  well  as  by 
theologians.  A  numerous  train  of  pontiffs  might  be  named, 
who,  in  word  and  in  deed,  disseminated  this  principle.  These 
viceroys  of  heaven,  indeed,  for  many  ages,  engaged,  with 
hardly  an  exception,  in  violating  faith  both  in  theory  and  in 
practice.  From  this  mass  may,  for  the  sake  of  exemplifying 
the  theory,  be  selected  Gregory,  Urban,  Paul,  Alexander, 
Clement,  Benedict,  and  Innocent. 

Gregory,  in  1080,  asserted  his  authority  to  dissolve  the  oath 
of  fealty.4  His  infallibility  supported  his  assertion  by  proofs, 
or  pretended  proofs,  from  scripture  and  tradition.  This  au- 
thority, his  holiness  alleged,  was  conveyed  in  the  power  of  the 
keys,  consisting  in  binding  and  loosing,  and  confirmed  by  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers.  The  contrary  opinion  he 
represented  as  madness  and  idolatry. 

Urban,  in  1090,  followed  the  example  of  Gregory.  Subjects, 
he  declared,  *  are  by  no  authority  bound  to  observe  the  fealty 
which  they  swear  to  a  Christian  prince,  who  withstands  God 


1  Licet  non  solvat,  non  incidit  in  poenam,  et  in  eodem  modo,  si  per  juramentum : 
in  ilia  obligatione  et  juramento  tacite  subintelligetur,  si  talis  permanserit,  cui  com- 
municate liceat.  Greg.  9.  Decret.  L.  5.  Tit.  7.  c.  16.  Maynooth  Report,  261. 

8  Populum  jurejurando  solutum  esse.  Thuan.  4.  690.  Lea  Francois  etoient 
effectivement  delie  du  serment  de  fidelite.  Maimburg,  299.  Daniel,  2.  349. 

3  Protestantes  fidem  datam  urgerent.     Contra  theologi  nostri  disputabant.  et  jam 
nperto  capite,  in  concionibus  et  evulgatis  scriptis,  ad  fidem   sectariis   servandam 
non  obligare  principem  contendebant.     Thuan.  3.  524. 

4  Contra  illorum  insaniam,  qui,  nefando  ore,  garriunt,   auctoritatem  sanctae  et 
Apostolicae  sedis  non  potuisse  quemquam  a  sacramento  fidelitatis  ejus  absolvere 
Labb.  12.  380,  439,  497 


VIOLATIONS  OF  OATHS  TAUGHT  AND  PRACTISED  BY  POPES.    281 

and  the  saints  and  contemns  their  precepts.'1  The  pontiff  ac- 
cordingly prohibited  Count  Hugo's  soldiery,  though  under  the 
obligation  of  an  oath,  to  obey  their  sovereign. 

Gregory,  the  Ninth,  in  1229,  followed  the  footsteps  of  his 
predecessors.  According  to  his  infallibility, '  none  should  keep 
faith  with  the  person  who  opposes  God  and  the  saints."2  Gre- 
gory, on  this  account,  declared  the  emperor  Frederic's  vassals 
freed  from  their  oath  of  fidelity. 

Urban  the  Sixth  imitated  Gregory  the  Ninth.  This  pontiff, 
in  1378,  declared  that  '  engagements  of  any  kind,  even  when 
confirmed  by  oath  with  persons  guilty  of  schism  or  heresy, 
though  made  before  their  apostacy,  are  in  themselves  unlawful 
and  void.'3 

Paul  the  Fourth,  in  1555,  absolved  himself  from  an  oath 
which  he  had  taken  in  the  Conclave.  His  holiness  had  sworn 
to  make  only  four  cardinals  ;  but  violated  his  obligation.  His 
supremacy  declared,  that  the  pontiff  could  not  be  bound,  or  his 
authority  limited,  even  by  an  oath.  The  contrary,  he  charac- 
terized, '  as  a  manifest  heresy.'4 

Paul  the  Fifth  canonized  Gregory  the  Seventh,  and  inserted 
an  office  in  the  Roman  breviary,  praising  his  holiness  for  free- 
ing the  emperor  Henry's  subjects  from  the  oath  of  fidelity.'5 
His  absolution,  as  well  as  the  deposition  of  the  emperor,  the 
pontiff  represents  as  an  act  of  piety  and  heroism.  Paul's  enact- 
ment, in  this  transaction,  was  sanctioned  by  Alexander,  Cle- 
ment, and  Benedict. 

Innocent  the  Tenth  declared  that  <  the  Roman  pontiff  could 
invalidate  civil  contracts,  promises,  or  oaths,  made  by  the  friends 
of  Catholicism  with  the  patrons  of  heresy.'6  A  denial  of  this 
proposition,  his  infallibility  styled  heresy ;  and  those  who  re- 
jected the  idea  of  papal  dispensation,  incurred,  according  to  his 
holiness,  the  penalty  prescribed  by  the  sacred  canons  and 
apostolic  constitutions  against  those  who  impugn  the  pontifical 
authority  in  questions  of  faith. 

The  Roman  pontiffs  taught  this  diabolical  doctrine,  not  only 
by  precept  but  also  by  example.  The  practice  of  annulling 

1  Fidelitatem  quam  Christiano  principi  jurant,  Deo  ejusque  sauctis  adversanti,  et 
eorum  praecepta  calcanti,  nullo  cohibentur  auctoritate  persolvere.     Pithou.  260. 
Decret.  caus.  15.     Quaest.  6. 

2  Personne  ne  doit  garder  fidelite  £  celui,  qui  s'oppose  a  Dieu  et  &  ses  saints. 
Bruy,  3.  183. 

3  Conventiones  factae  cum  hujusmodi  haereticis  seu  schismaticis,  postquam  talea 
efFecti  erant,  sunt  temerariae,  illicitse,  et  ipso  jure  nullae,  (etsi  forte  ante  ipsorum 
lapsum  in  schisma  seu  haeresim  initse)  etiam  si  forent  juramento  vel  fide   data 
firmatae.     Rymer,  7.  352. 

4  Le  contraire  etoit  une  heresie  manifesto.     Paolo,  2.  27. 

5  Subditos  populos  fide  ei  data  liberavit.     Bruy.  2.  492.     Grotty,  85. 

6  Coutractus  civiles,  promissa,  vel  juramenta  catholicorum  cum  hseretici*    oo 
quod  hseretici  sint,  per  pontificem  enervari  possint.     Caron,  14. 


282  THE    VARIATIONS    OP    POPERY  ! 

oaths  and  breaking  faith  was  exemplified  by  Zachary,  Gregory 
Innocent,  Honorius,  Clement,  Urban,  Eugenius,  Clement, 
Paul,  and  Pius,  as  the  theory  had  been  taught  by  Gregory, 
Urban,  Paul,  Alexander,  Clement,  Benedict,  and  Innocent. 
Pope  Zachary,  in  745,  annulled  the  French  nation's  oath  of 
fealty  to  king  Childeric,  and  Stephen,  Zachary's  successor, 
afterward  dissolved  Pepin's  allegiance  to  the  French 
monarch.1 

Gregory,  in  1078, '  absolved  all  from  their  fidelity,  who  were 
bound  by  oath  to  persons  excommunicated.'  This  sweeping 
and  infernal  sentence,  his  holiness,  according  to  his  own  ac- 
count, pronounced  *  in  accordance  with  the  statutes  of  his  sacred 
predecessors  and  in  virtue  of  his  apostolic  authority.'2 

Innocent,  in  1215,  '  freed  all  that  were  bound  to  those  who 
had  fallen  into  heresy  from  all  fealty,  homage,  and  obedience.'3 
His  infallibility's  dispensation  extended  to  the  dissolution  of 
obligation  arid  security  of  all  kinds. 

Honorius,  in  1220,  freed  the  king  of  Hungary  from  all  obli- 
gations in  some  alienations  of  his  kingdom,  which  his  majesty 
nad  made  and  which  he  had  sworn  to  fulfil.  These,  it  appears, 
were  prejudicial  to  the  state  and  dishonourable  to  the  sovereign. 
His  holiness,  however,  soon  contrived  a  remedy,  which  was 
distinguished  by  its  facility  and  efficiency.  The  vicar-general 
of  God,  in  the  fulness  of  apostolic  authority,  '  demolished  the 
royal  oath,  and  commanded  the  revocation  of  these  alienations.'4 

Clement,  in  1306,  emancipated  Edward,  king  of  England, 
from  a  solemn  oath  in  confirmation  of  the  great  charter.  '  The 
English  monarch  had  taken  this  obligation  in  1258  on  the 
holy  evangelists,'  and  the  ceremony  was  performed  writh  an 
affecting  solemnity  and  awful  imprecations  of  perdition  in  case 
of  violation  or  infringement.  The  Roman  viceroy  of  heaven 
however,  soon  removed  these  uneasy  bonds,  and  furnished  his 
British  majesty  with  a  ready  licence  for  the  breach  of  faith  and 
the  commission  of  perjury.  The  pontiff'  published  a  bull, 
*  granting  the  king  absolution  from  his  oath.'5  The  absolution, 

1  Zacharias  omnes  Francigenas  a  juramento  fidelitatis  absolvit.  Labb.  12.  500 
Pithou,  260.  Pepinus  a  Stephano  pape  a  fidelitatis  sacramento  absolvitur.  Otho 
V.  23.  Boasuet,  1.  49. 

3  Eos  qui  excommunicatis  fidelitate  aut  sacramento  constricti  sunt,  Apostolica 
auctoritate  a  sacramento  absolvimus.  Pithou,  260.  Caus.  15.  Q.  6. 

3  Absolutes  se  noverint  a  debito  fidelitatis,  hominii,  et  totius  obsequii,  quicunque 
lapsis  manifesto  in  haereism,  aliquo  pacto,  quacunque  firmitate  vallato,  tenebantur 
adstricti.     Pithou,  241.     L.  5.     T.  7. 

4  Nos  eidem  regi  dirigimus  scripta  nostra,  ut  alienationes  prsedictas,  non  obstante 


163. 

Pape  lui  donnoit  1'absolution  du  serment.     Bruy. 
Rex  coactus  est  praestare  sacramentum.     Trivettus,  Ann.  1258.     Obtinebat  rex 
a  Domino  papa  absolutionem  a  juramento.     Trivettus,   Ann.    1306.     Dachery,  a 
196.  230 


VIOLATIONS  OF  OATHS  TAUGHT  AND  PRACTISED  BY  POPES.    283 

for  greater  comfort,  was  supported  in  the  rear  by  an  excommu- 
nication pronounced  against  all  who  should  observe  such  an 
oath. 

Urban  imitated  Clement.  This  plenipotentiary  of  heaven, 
in  1367,  in  the  administration  of  his  spiritual  vicegerency,  trans- 
mitted absolution  to  some  Frenchmen,  who  had  been  taken 
prisoners  by  a  gang  of  marauders  who  invested  the  French  na- 
tion, and  had  sworn  all  whom  they  released,  to  remit  a  sum  of 
money  as  the  price  of  their  liberation.1  His  holiness,  however, 
having  heard  of  the  transaction,  not  only  repealed  the  treaty  ; 
but  with  the  whole  weight  of  his  pontifical  authority, '  dissolved 
the  oath  and  interdicted  the  payment  of  the  ransom.' 

Eugenius  the  Fourth  reaped  laurels  in  this  field,  and  outshone 
many  of  his  rivals  in  the  skilful  management  of  the  oath-annul- 
ling process.  His  holiness,  who  wielded  his  prerogative  in  this 
way  toward  Piccinino  and  in  nullifying  the  Bohemian  compacts, 
was  followed  in  this  latter  transaction,  by  Pope  Pius.  Eu- 
genius, in  1444,  also  induced  Ladislaus  king  of  Hungary,  to 
break  his  treaty  with  the  sultan  Amurath,  though  confirmed 
by  the  solemn  oaths  of  the  king  and  the  sultan  on  the  gospel 
and  the  koran.  His  holiness,  on  this  occasion,  introduced  a 
variety  into  the  system  established  for  the  encouragement  of 
perjury,  by  executing  his  plan  by  proxy.  Julian,  clothed  with 
legatine  authority,  mustered  all  his  eloquence  to  effect  the 
design  ;  and  represented,  in  strong  colours,  the  criminality  of 
observing  a  treaty,  so  prejudicial  to  the  public  safety  and  so 
inimical  to  the  holy  faith.  The  pontiff's  vicegerent,  in  solemn 
mockery,  dispensed  with  the  oath,  which,  being  sworn  with 
infidels,  was,  like  those  with  heretics,  a  mere  nullity.  *  I 
absolve  you,'  said  the  representative  of  the  representative  of 
God,  '  from  perjury,  and^  I  sanctify  your  arms.  Follow  my 
footsteps  in  the  path  of  glory  and  salvation.  Dismiss  your 
scrupulosity,  and  devolve  on  my  head  the  sin  and  the  punish- 
ment.' The  sultan,  it  is  said,  displayed  a  copy  of  the  violated 
treaty,  the  monument  of  papal  perfidy,  in  the  front  of  battle, 
implored  the  protection  of  the  God  of  truth,  and  called  aloud 
on  the  prophet  Jesus  to  avenge  the  mockery  of  his  religion  and 
authority.  The  faith  of  Islamism  excelled  the  casuistry  of 
popery.  The  perjurers,  whom  Moreri  calls  Christians,  *  falsi- 
fied their  oath,'  took  arms  against  the  Turks,  and  were  defeated 
on  the  plains  of  Varna.2 

1  Le  Pape  envoia  aux  prisonniers  1'absolution  du  serment.     Daniel,  5.  145- 

2  Les  Chretiens  sollicitez  par  Julien,  Legat  du  Pape  Eugene  IV.  fausserent  leur 
foi.     Moreri,  1.  390.     Sismond.  9.  196.     Canisius,  4.  462.     Lenfant,  2.  164.     Le 
Cardinal  1'  en  dispensoit  par  1'authorite  du  siege  Apostolique.     Amurath  s'  escria 
au  milieu  du  combat,  Christ,  Christ,  voy  ton  peuple  desloyal  qui  a  faulc6  sa  foy. 
Vigorien,  3.  692. 


284  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Clement,  in  1526,  absolved  Francis  II.  the  French  king  from 
a  treaty  which  he  had  formed  in  Spain.1  The  emperor  of 
Germany  had  taken  his  Christian  majesty  a  prisoner  in  the 
battle  of  Pavia,  and  carried  him  to  Madrid.  The  conditions  of 
his  engagement,  which  were  disadvantageous,  Francis  confirmed 
by  an  oath.  This  engagement,  however,  the  pontiff,  by  his 
apostolic  power,  soon  dissolved,  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  the 
French  king  as  an  ally  in  a  holy  confederacy,  which  his  infal- 
libility had  organized  against  the  German  emperor.  The 
convention,  though  ratified  by  a  solemn  oath,  soon  yielded  to 
apostolic  power,  and,  more  especially,  as  its  annihilation  con- 
duced to  ecclesiastical  utility. 

Pope  Paul  III.  in  1535,  *  forbade  all  sovereigns,  on  pain  of 
excommunication,  to  lend  any  aid,  under  pretext  of  any  obli- 
gation or  oath,  to  Henry  VIII.  king  of  England.'  His  holiness 
also  '  absolved  ah1  princes  from  all  such  promises  and  engage- 
ments.'2 Pius  IV.  treated  Elizabeth  as  Paul  had  treated 
Henry.  l  His  holiness  annulled  the  oath  of  allegiance,  which 
had  been  sworn  to  her  majesty,  by  her  subjects.'  This  consti- 
tution Gregory  XIII.  and  Sixtus  V.  renewed  and  confirmed.3 
Henry  and  Elizabeth  had  patronized  schism  or  heresy,  and 
therefore  forfeited  all  claim  to  enjoy  the  conditions  of  plighted 
faith. 

Councils,  as  well  as  pontiffs,  encouraged  this  principle  of 
faithlessness.  Some  of  these  synods  were  provincial  and  some 
general.  Among  the  provincial  councils,  which  countenanced 
or  practised  this  maxim  were  those  of  Rome,  Lateran,  and 
Diamper. 

A  Roman  Council,  in  1036,  absolved  Edward  the  Confessor, 
king  of  England,  from  a  vow  which  he  had  made  to  visit  the 
city  of  Rome  and  the  tombs  of  the  holy  apostles.  The  fulfil- 
ment of  his  engagement,  it  seems,  was  inconvenient  to  his 
sainted  majesty,  and  contrary  to  the  wish  of  the  British  nation. 
But  Leo  the  Ninth  and  a  Roman  council  soon  supplied  a 
remedy.  His  holiness  presided  in  this  assembly,  which  eulo- 
gized Edward's  piety,  and  in  a  few  moments  and  with  great 
facility,  disannulled  his  majesty's  troublesome  vow.4 

Gregory  VII.  in  1076,  in  a  Roman  synod,  absolved  all  Chris- 
tians from  their  oath  of  fealty  to  the  Emperor  Henry,  who,  in 
his  infallibility's  elegant  language,  had  become  a  member  of  the 

1  Le  Pape  delivera  le  roi  du  serment  qu'il  avoit  prete  en  Espagne.     Paol.  1.  63. 

*  Henrici  vassalos  et  eubditos  a  juramento  fidelitatis  absolvit.  Cum  Henrico, 
confoederationes,  contractus,  pacta,  et  conventa  omnia,  quovis  modo  stabilita,  irrita 
facit  et  nulla.  Alex.  24.  420. 

3  Omnes  ac  singulos  ejus  subditos  a  juramento  fidelitatis  absolvit,  lato  in  eos,  qui 
illius  legibus  ac  mandatis  parerent,  anathemate.  Alexander,  23.  425.  Bruy.  4  502. 

4  Sa  Saintete,  qui  y  presidoit,  lui  donna  1' absolution  de  son  voeu.     AndiUy.  558. 


VIOLATIONS    OF    OATHS    BY   POPISH   COUNCILS.  285 

devil,  and  an  enemy  to  the  vicar-general  of  God.1  He  also 
interdicted  all  persons  from  obeying  Henry,  as  king,  notwith- 
standing their  oath.  This  sentence  the  pontiff,  with  the  appro- 
bation of  the  council,  pronounced  as  the  plenipotentiary  of 
heaven,  '  who  possessed  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing,  in 
the  name  of  Almighty  God,  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.' 

A  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1112,  freed  Pascal  the  Roman 
pontiff  from  an  oath  which  he  had  sworn  on  the  consecrated 
host,  on  the  subject  of  investitures  and  excommunication.  This 
obligation,  in  all  its  terrors,  the  holy  assembly,  with  the  utmost 
unanimity,  '  condemned  and  annulled.'2  This  decision,  the 
sacred  synod,  in  their  own  statement,  *  pronounced  by  canonical 
authority  and  by  the  judgment  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  These 
patrons  of  perjury,  in  the  annunciation  of  this  infernal  sentence, 
pretended,  in  the  language  of  blasphemy,  to  the  inspiration  of 
neaven. 

Gregory  the  Ninth,  in  1228,  convened  a  Roman  council, 
consisting  of  the  bishops  of  Lombardy,  Tuscany,  and  Apulia, 
and,  with  the  approbation  of  this  assembly,  absolved,  from  their 
oath,  all  who  had  sworn  fealty  to  Frederic  the  Roman  Emperor. 
The  sacred  synod  issued  this  sentence,  because,  according  to 
its  own  statement,  no  person  is  obliged  to  keep  faith  with  a 
Christian  prince  when  he  gainsays  God  and  the  saints.3  The 
pontiff,  on  this  occasion,  declared,  in  council,  that  *  he  pro- 
ceeded against  the  emperor,  as  against  one  who  was  guilty  of 
heresy  and  who  despised  the  keys  of  the  church.'  The  synodal 
decision  contains  a  direct  and  unmitigated  avowal  of  the  dia- 
bolical maxim,  that  no  faith  should  be  kept  with  persons  guilty 
of  heresy  or  of  rebellion  against  the  popedom. 

The  synod  of  Diamper,  in  India,  issued  a  decision  of  the 
same  kind.  This  assembly,  in  1599,  under  the  presidency  of 
Menez,  invalidated  the  oaths  that  those  Indian  Christians  had 
taken  against  changing  Syrianism  for  Popery,  or  receiving  their 
clergy  from  the  Roman  pontiff  instead  of  the  Babylonian 
patriarch.  Such  obligations,  the  holy  council  pronounced 
pestilential  and  void,  and  the  keeping  of  them  an  impiety  and 
temerity.4  The  sacred  synod,  in  this  manner,  could,  by  a 
skilful  use  of  their  spiritual  artillery,  exterminate  obligations 
and  oaths  by  wholesale. 

The  encouragement  to  faithlessness  and  perjury  was  not 

1  Omnes  Christianos  a  vinculo  juramenti  absolve.     Labb.  12.  600     \ 
9  Judicio  Sancti  Spiritus  damnamus.     Irritum   esse  judicamus,   atque   omnino 
castramuB.     Labb.  12.  1165.     Bray.  2.  580.     Platina,  in  Pascal. 

3  On  n'est  point  oblige  de  garder  la  foi,  que  1'on  a  jure  a  un  prince  Chrestien, 
quand  il  s'oppoae  A  Dieu  et  a  aes  saints.     Bruy.  3.  179.     Labb.  13.  114,  1223. 

4  Declarat  Synodus  juramenta  hujusmodi  nulla  prorsus  et  irrita.     Cossart,  6,  51 


286  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

confined  to  provincial  synods,  but  extended  to  universal  coun- 
cils. Six  of  these  general  ecclesiastical  conventions  patronized, 
in  word  or  deed,  by  precept  or  example,  violation  of  engage- 
ments and  breach  of  trust.  These  were  the  universal  councils 
of  the  Lateran,  Lyons,  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil. 

The  third  general  council  of  the  Lateran,  superintended  by 
Alexander  and  clothed  with  infallibility,  taught  this  principle  in 
word  and  deed.  The  unerring  fathers,  in  the  sixteenth  canon, 
styled  '  an  oath  contrary  to  ecclesiastical  utility,  not  an  oath, 
but  perjury.'1  The  pontiffs,  whose  province  it  is  to  explain 
oaths  and  vows,  always  confounded  ecclesiastical  utility  with 
pontifical  aggrandizement.  Obligations,  therefore,  which  mili- 
tated against  the  interest  or  grandeur  of  the  papacy,  soon  has- 
tened to  their  dissolution.  The  Lateran  convention,  in  its 
twenty-seventh  canon,  exemplified  its  Cwn  theory,  and  disen- 
gaged, from  their  oath  of  fidelity,  the  vassals  of  the  barons  and 
lords  who  embraced  or  protected  the  heresy  of  Albigensianism.* 
These  princes  patronized  heresy,  and  their  subjects,  therefore, 
were  not  bound  to  keep  faith  with  such  sovereigns,  or  to  yield 
them  fealty  or  obedience.  This  language  is  unequivocal,  and 
supersedes,  by  its  perspicuity  and  precision,  the  necessity  of 
any  comment. 

The  fourth  general  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1215,  issued 
an  enactment  of  the  same  kind.  This  infallible  assembly,  in 
its  third  canon,  *  freed  the  subjects  of  such  sovereigns  as 
embraced  heresy  from  their  fealty.'3  The  temporal  lord,  who 
refused  to  purify  his  dominions  from  heretical  pollution,  not  only 
forfeited  the  allegiance  of  his  vassals,  but  his  title  to  his  estate, 
which,  in  consequence,  might  be  seized  by  any  orthodox  ad- 
venturer. Heresy,  therefore,  according  to  this  unerring  con- 
gress, rescinds  the  obligation  of  fidelity,  cancels  the  right  of 
property,  and  warrants  the  violation  of  faith. 

The  general  council  of  Lyons  absolved  the  Emperor  Frederic's 
vassals  from  their  oath  of  fealty.4  The  synod  in  their  own  way, 
convicted  the  emperor  of  schism,  heresy,  and  church-robbery. 
His  criminality,  therefore,  according  to  the  unerring  council, 
warranted  a  breach  of  faith,  and  a  dissolution  of  the  subject's 
oath  of  obedience.  Innocent,  who  presided  on  the  occasion, 
represented  himself  as  the  viceroy  of  heaven,  on  whom  God, 

1  Non  juraraenta,  sed  perjuria  potius  sunt  dicenda,  quae  contra  utilitatem  ecclesi- 
asticam  attentantur.     Pith.  110.     Labb.  13.  426.     Gibert,  3.  504. 

2  Relaxatos  se  noverint  a  debito  fidelitatis  et  hominii,  et  totius  obsequii.     Labb. 
13.431. 

3  Vassalos  ab  ejus  fidelitate  denunciet  absolutes.     Bin.  8.  807.     Labb.  13.  934. 

4  Omnes  qui  ei  juramento  fidelitatis  tenentur  adstricti  a  juramento   hujusmodi 
perpetuo  absolventes.     Labb.  14   52.     Binn.  8.  852.     Paris,  651,   652.     Giannon, 
XVIII.  3. 


VIOLATIONS    OF    OATHS    BY    POPISH    COUNCILS.  287 

in  the  person  of  the  Galilean  fisherman,  had  conferred  the  keys 
of  his  kingdom,  and  vested  with  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing.  The  council  concurred  with  the  pontiff.  The  pope 
and  the  prelacy,  says  Paris,  '  lighted  tapers  and  thundered,  in 
frightful  fulminations,  against  his  imperial  majesty.'  The  testi- 
mony of  Paris  is  corroborated  by  Nangis  and  pope  Martin.1 

The  general  council  of  Pisa  imitated  those  of  the  Lateran 
and  Lyons.  This  assembly,  in  its  fifteenth  session,  released 
all  Christians  from  their  oath  of  fidelity  to  Benedict  and 
Gregory,  and  forbade  all  men,  notwithstanding  any  obligation, 
to  obey  the  rival  pontiffs,  whom  the  holy  fathers,  by  a  sum- 
mary process,  convicted  of  perjury,  contumacy,  incorrigibility, 
schism,  and  heresy.2  The  sacred  synod,  in  this  instance, 
assumed  the  power  of  dissolving  sworn  engagements,  and  of 
warranting  all  Christendom  to  break  faith  with  two  viceroys 
of  heaven,  who,  according  to  the  synodal  sentence,  were  guilty 
of  schism  and  heresy. 

The  general  council  of  Constance,  on  this  topic,  outstripped 
all  competition,  and  gained  an  infamous  celebrity,  in  recom- 
mending and  exemplifying  treachery,  the  demolition  of  oaths, 
and  unfaithfulness  to  engagements.  The  holy  assembly  having 
convicted  John,  though  a  lawful  pope,  of  simony,  schism, 
heresy,  infidelity,  murder,  perjury,  fornication,  adultery,  rape, 
incest,  sodomy,  and  a  few  other  trifling  frailties  of  a  similar 
kind,  deposed  his  holiness,  and  emancipated  all  Christians  from 
their  oath  of  obedience  to  his  supremacy.3  His  infallibility,  in 
the  mean  time,  notwithstanding  his  simony,  schism,  heresy, 
perjury,  murder,  incest,  and  sodomy,  exercised  his  prerogative 
of  dissolving  oaths  as  well  as  the  council.  The  holy  fathers 
had  sworn  to  conceal  from  the  pontiff  their  plans  for  his 
degradation.  The  trusty s  prelacy,  however,  notwithstanding 
their  obligation  to  secrecy,  revealed  all,  during  the  night,  to  his 
holiness.  John,  by  this  means,  had  the  satisfaction  of  discov- 
ering the  machinations  of  his  judges,  and  of  inducing  the 
infallible  bishops  to  perjury.  The  pontiff,  however,  by  his 
sovereign  authority,  and  by  the  power  of  the  keys,  soon  dis- 
annulled these  obligations,  and  delivered  the  perjured  traitors, 
who  composed  the  sacred  synod,  from  their  oath  of  secrecy.4 

1  Diligent!  deliberatione  praehabita  cum  praelatis  ibidem  congregates  super  nefan- 
dis  Frederici.     Nangis,  Ann.  1045.     Dachery,  3.  35. 

Innocentius,  memoratum  Fredericum  in  concilio  Lugdunensi,  eodem  approbante 
concilio  denunciavit.  Dachery,  3.  684. 

2  Nonobstaute  quocuuque  fidelitatis  juramento.     Labb.  15.  1138.     Alex.  24.  573 
Dachery,  1.  847. 

3  Universes  et  singulos  Christianos  ab   ejus  obedientia,  fidelitate,  et  juramento 
absolutos  declarans.     Alex.  24.  620. 

4  Les  degageant  par  son  autorite  souveraine  des  sermens,  qu'ils  avoient  faits  de 
ne  rien  reveler      Bruy.  4.  40-     Labb.  16.  233 


288  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

The  pontiff  shewed  the  council,  that  he  could  demolish  oaths 
as  well  as  his  faithless  accusers,  who  *  represented  the  whole 
church  and  had  met  in  the  spirit  of  God.' 

The  Constantians,  in  the  twentieth  session,  freed  the  vassals 
of  Frederic,  Duke  of  Austria,  from  their  oath  of  fealty.  The 
thirty-seventh  session  was  distinguished  by  disentangling  all 
Christians  from  their  oath  of  fidelity,  however  taken,  to  Pope 
Benedict,  and  forbidding  any  to  obey  him  on  pain  of  the  pen- 
alty annexed  to  schism  and  heresy.1  The  sacred  synod,  in  its 
forty-first  session,  annulled  and  execrated  all  conventions  and 
oaths,  which  might  militate  against  the  freedom  and  efficiency 
of  the  pending  election. 

This  council's  treatment  of  Huss  and  Jerome  constituted  the 
most  revolting  instance  of  its  treachery.  The  martyrdom  of 
these  celebrated  friends,  indeed,  was  one  of  the  most  glaring, 
undisguised,  and  disgusting  specimens  of  perfidy  ever  ex- 
hibited to  the  gaze  of  an  astonished  world  or  recorded  for  the 
execration  of  posterity.  John  Huss  was  summoned  to  the 
city  of  Constance  on  a  charge  of  heresy.  His  safety,  during 
his  journey,  his  stay,  and  his  RETURN,  was  guaranteed  by  a 
safe-conduct  from  the  Emperor  Sigismund,  addressed  to  all 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  governors  in  his  dominions.  Huss 
obeyed  the  summons.  Plighted  faith,  however,  could,  in  those 
days,  confer  no  security  on  a  man  accused  of  heresy.  Huss 
was  tried  and  condemned  by  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  which, 
in  its  holy  zeal,  t  devoted  his  soul  to  the  infernal  devils,'  and 
delivered  his  body  to  the  secular  arm ;  which,  notwithstanding 
the  imperial  promise  of  protection  and  in  defiance  of  all  justice 
and  humanity,  committed  the  victim  of  its  own  perfidy  to  the 
flames.'2  This  harbinger  of  the  reformation  suffered  martyr- 
dom with  the  emperor's  safe-conduct  in  his  hand.  He  died  as 
he  had  lived,  like  a  Christian  hero.  He  endured  the  punish- 
ment with  unparalleled  magnanimity,  and,  in  the  triumph  of 
faith  and  the  extacy  of  divine  love,  'sung  hymns  to  God,' 
while  the  mouldering  flesh  was  consumed  from  his  bones,  till 
the  immortal  spirit  ascended  from  the  funeral  pile  and  soared 
to  heaven.3 

Jerome,  also,  trepanned  by  the  mockery  of  a  safe-conduct 
fiom  the  faithless  synod,  shared  the  same  destiny.  This  man, 

1  Omnes  Christianos  ab  ejus  obedientia  atque  juramentis  absolvit.  Coss.  4.  81. 
Labb.  16.  309,  681,  714.  » 

3  Animam  tuam  devovemus  diabolis  informs.     Lenfan.  1.  409. 

3  Hus  monta  sur  le  bucher,  avec  une  grande  intrepidite,  et  il  mourut  en  chan- 
tant  des  Pseaumes.  Moreri,  4.  221. 

Aucun  philosophe  n'avoit  endure  la  mort  avec  une  resolution  si  determinee.     II 


pratiqua  le  dehors  de  toua  les  actes  que  suggere  la  devotion  la  plus  solide.     Sa  fer- 
vour redoubloit  lors  qu'il  apperceut  le  flambeau.     Hist. 


Hist,  du  Wiclef.  2,  127.  128. 


VIOLATIONS    OF    OATHS    BY    POPISH    COUNCILS.  289 

distinguished  for  his  friendship  and  eloquence,  came  to  Con 
stance,  for  the  generous  purpose  of  supporting  his  early 
companion,  and  died  with  heroism,  in  the  fire  which  had  con- 
sumed his  friend.  Huss  and  Jerome,  says  ^Eneas  Sylvius, 
afterward  Pope  Pius  the  Second,  'discovered  no  symptom  of 
weakness,  went  to  punishment  as  to  a  festival,  and  sung  hymns 
in  the  midst  of  the  flames  and  without  interruption  till  the  last 
sigh." 

Doctor  Murray,  Titular  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  has,  in  his 
examination  before  the  British  Commons,  endeavoured,  by  his 
usual  misrepresentations  and  sophistry,  to  exculpate  Sigismund 
and  the  synod  from  the  imputation  of  faithlessness.  The 
task  was  Herculean,  but  the  bishop's  arguments  are  silly. 
Murray,  like  Phaeton,  failed  in  a  bold  attempt.  The  imperial 
safe-conduct,  says  the  doctor,  following  Becanus,  Maimburg, 
and  Alexander,  was  only  a  passport,  like  those  granted  to 
travellers  on  the  European  continent,  to  hinder  interruption 
or  molestation  on  the  way  :  but,  by  no  means,  to  prevent  the 
execution  of  justice,  in  case  of  a  legal  conviction.  The  arch- 
bishop's statement  is  as  faithless  as  the  emperor's  safe-conduct 
or  the  synod's  sentence.  The  emperor's  promised  protection 
to  Huss,  '  extended,  not  only  to  his  going  and  stay,  but  also 
to  his  RETURN.'  The  return  of  this  victim  of  treachery  was 
intercepted  by  the  faggot  and  the  stake,  trying  obstacles,  indeed, 
but  good  enough  for  a  heretic.  The  emperor's  safe-conduct, 
says  the  Popish  author  of  the  history  of  Wickliffism,  *  was,  in 
its  terms,  clear,  general,  absolute,  and  without  reserve.'2 

The  council  was  accessory  to  the  emperor's  treachery.  The 
safe-conduct,  indeed,  was  not  binding  on  the  Constantian 
clergy.  These  were  not  a  party  to  the  agreement,  a.nd  pos- 
sessed, at  least  a  canonical \and  admitted  power  of  pronouncing 
on  the  theology  of  the  accused.  An  ecclesiastical  court  was 
the  proper  tribunal  for  deciding  an  ecclesiastical  question. 
The  Constantian  fathers,  therefore,  according  to  the  opinion  of 
the  age,  might,  with  propriety,  have  tried  the  Catholicism  of 
Huss,  and,  on  evidence,  declared  him  guilty  of  heresy  and 
obstinacy.  But  this  did  not  satisfy  the  holy  synod,  who  advised 

1  Us  alloient  au  supplies  comme  &  un  festin.  II  ne  leur  echappa  jamais  aucune 
parole,  qui  marquat  la  moindre  foiblesse.  Au  milieu  des  flammes,  ils  chanterent 
des  hymnes  jusques  au  dernier  soupir.  Moreri,  4.  232.  Sylv.  c.  36. 

Qui  les  avoient  accompagnez  leur  avoient  oui  chanter  jusqu'  au  dernier  leur  vie 
les  louanges  de  Dieu.  Hist.  Du  Wiclif.  2. 

3  Transire,  stare,  morari,  et  redire  libere  permittatis.     Alexander,  25,  258,  260. 

De  le  laisser  -ibrement  et  surement  passer,  demeurer,  s'arreter,  et  retoumer. 
Moreri,  4.  232.  Du  Pin,  3.  92.  Les  termes  etoient  evidens,  generaux,  absolus,  el 
sans  aucune  reserve.  Histoire  du  Wicklifianisme,  98.  Maimb.  215.  Com.  Rep 
629. 

19 


290  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

and  sanctioned  Sigiemund's  breach  of  faith,  and,  by  this  means, 
became  partakers  in  his  perfidy. 

But  Huss,  says  Murray,  suffered  in  Constance,  a  free  city, 
over  the  laws  of  which  Sigismund  had  no  control.  The  empe- 
ror, he  concludes,  could  not  have  prevented  the  Constantian 
Act  of  Faith.  This  is  another  shameful  misrepresentation. 
The  bishop,  in  his  statement,  breaks  faith  with  history  as  much 
as  the  emperor  did  with  Huss.  The  emperor  made  no  attempt 
to  oppose  the  synod.  His  majesty,  on  the  contrary,  protested, 
that  rather  than  support  the  Heresiarch  in  his  error  and  obsti- 
nacy, he  would  kindle  the  fire  with  his  own  hands.  The  sen- 
tence, accordingly,  was  executed  by  imperial  authority.  The 
council  consigned  the  prisoner  to  the  emperor,  and  the  emperor 
to  the  Duke  of  Bavaria,  who  delivered  him  to  the  executioner.1 
Sigismund,  it  appears,  possessed  power ;  but  instead  of  using 
it  for  the  protection  of  Huss,  he  exerted  it  for  his  punishment. 
He  could  not,  indeed,  have  annulled  the  prisoner's  sentence  of 
heresy ;  but  he  could  have  granted  him  life  and  liberty,  till  the 
expiration  of  his  safe-conduct,  as  Charles  V.  did  to  Luther. 

But  the  council's  sanction  of  the  oath  annulling  and  faith- 
violating  system  depends,  by  no  means,  on  the  contents  of  the 
emperor's  safe-conduct  or  his  treatment  of  Huss.  Murray,  if 
he  even  could  have  vindicated  Sigismund,  would  have  effected 
just  nothing  with  respect  to  the  council,  The  holy  ruffians,  at 
Constance,  avowed  the  shocking  maxim  with  fearlessness  and 
without  disguise,  both  by  their  deputation  to  the  emperor  and 
by  their  declarations  in  council. 

The  deputation  sent  to  the  emperor,  for  the  purpose  of  con- 
certing a  plan  for  the  safety  and  convenience  of  the  council's 
future  deliberations,  maintained  this  principle.  These  gave  his 
majesty  to  understand,  that  the  council  had  authority  to  disen- 
gage him  from  a  legal  promise,  when  pledged  to  a  person  guilty 
of  heresy.  This  is  attested  by  Dachery,  an  eye-witness,  in  his 
German  history  of  the  Constantian  council.  The  deputation, 
says  this  historian,  '  in  a  long  speech,  persuaded  the  emperor, 
that  by  decretal  authority,  he  should  not  keep  faith  with  a  man 
accused  of  heresy.'2  Nauclerus,  who  lived  shortly  after  the 
council,  testifies  nearly  the  same  thing.  The  emperor  himself 
entertained  this  opinion  of  the  deputation's  sentiments.  His 
majesty,  addressing  Huss  at  his  last  examination,  declared  '  that 
some  thought  he  had  no  right  to  afford  any  protection  to  a  man 

'  Lenfan.  1.  82,  318.     Du  Pin,  3.  94.     Bruy.  4.  66.     Hist,  du  Wicklif.  126. 

*  Caesar,  quasi  tenore  decretalium,  Husso  fidem  datam  praestare  non  tenweta* 
mrltis  verbis  persuasus,  Husso  et  Bohemia  Salvi  Conductus  fidem  fregit.  Lenfant 
1.82. 


VIOLATIONS    OF    OATHS    BY    POPISH    COUNCILS.  291 

convicted  or  even  suspected  of  heresy/1  The  deputation,  on 
this  occasion,  must  have  known  and  represented  the  opinion 
of  the  synod,  which  acquiesced,  without  any  contradiction,  in 
this  statement,  and  which,  had  the  emperor  been  mistaken, 
should  have  corrected  the  error,  Huss  was  a  victim  to  the 
malevolent  passions  of  the  council,  and  the  superstition  and 
perfidy  of  the  emperor. 

The  faith-violating  maxim  was  avowed,  not  only  by  the  de- 
putation, but  also  by  the  council.  The  infallible  assembly, 
boldly,  roundly,  and  expressly  declared,  that  '  no  faith  or  pro- 
mise, prejudicial  to  Catholicism,  was  to  be  kept  with  John  Huss 
by  natural,  divine,  or  human  law.'2  Prejudicial  to  Catholicism, 
in  this  case,  could  signify  no  infraction  on  the  faith  of  the 
church ;  but  merely  the  permission  of  a  man  convicted  of 
heresy,  to  escape  with  his  life.  Faith,  therefore,  according  to 
the  council,  should  be  violated  rather  than  allow  a  heretic  to 
live.  The  synod  of  Basil,  however,  and  the  diet  of  Worms 
thought  otherwise,  when  they  suffered  the  Bohemians  and 
Luther,  under  the  protection  of  a  safe-conduct,  to  withdraw 
from  the  council  and  the  diet,  and  returned  in  safety  to  their 
own  country. 

The  sacred  synod,  unsatisfied  with  this  frightful  declaration, 
issued,  in  its  nineteenth  session,  another  enactment  of  a  similar 
kmd,  but  expressed  in  more  general  terms  and  capable  of  more 
extensive  application.  According  to  these  patrons  of  perfidy, 
'  no  safe-conduct,  disadvantageous  to  the  faith  or  jurisdiction 
of  the  church,  though  granted  by  emperor  or  king,  and  ratified 
by  the  most  solemn  obligations,  can  be  any  protection  to  per- 
sons convicted  of  heresy.  Persons,  suspected  of  defection 
from  the  faith,  may  be  tried  by  the  proper  ecclesiastical  judges, 
and,  if  convicted  and  persisting  in  error,  may  be  punished, 
though  they  attended  the  tribunal  relying  on  a  safe-conduct, 
and  otherwise  would  not  have  appeared.'8  This  declaration, 
it  is  plain,  contains  a  formal  sanction  of  the  atrocious  principle. 

Alexander,  followed  by  Murray,  Crotty,  and  Higgins, 
endeavours  to  vindicate  the  council  and  the  emperor,  by 
distributing  the  condemnation  and  execution  of  Huss  between 
the  synodal  and  royal  authority.4  The  council,  in  the  exercise 
of  its  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  convicted  the  accused  of  heresy, 

1  Nonnulli  dicant,  nos  de  jure  ei  non  posse  patrocinari,  qui  aut  haereticus,  aut  de 
hseresi  aliqua  suspectus.     Hard.  4.  397.     Lenfant,  1.  492. 

2  Nee  aliqua  sibi  fides,  aut  promissio  de  jure  natural!,  Divino,  aut  humane,  fuent 
in  praejudicium  Catholics?  fidei  observanda.     Labbeus,  16.  292. 

3  Salvo  dicto  conductu  non  obstante,  liceat  judici  competent!  ecclesiastico  de 
ejusmodi  personarum  erroribus  inquirere,  et  alias   contra   eos   debite   procedere, 
eosdemque  punire.     Labbeus,  16.  301.     Alex.  25.  255.     Crabb.  2.  1111. 

4  Alex.  25.  256.     Murray,  660.     Crotty,  88.     Higgins,  271. 

19* 


292  THE     VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

and  the  emperor,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  executed 
the  sentence.  Both,  therefore,  were  clear  of  all  imputation  of 
perfidy. 

This  is  a  beautiful  specimen  of  Shandian  logic  and  casuis- 
try. The  learned  doctors  had  studied  dialectics  in  the  above- 
mentioned  celebrated  school.  An  action,  according  to  Tris- 
trim,  which,  when  committed  entirely  by  one,  is  sinful,  does, 
when  divided  between  two,  and  perpetrated  partly  by  one, 
and  partly  by  the  other,  become  sinless.  Two  ladies,  accord- 
ingly, an  abbess  and  Margarita,  wished  to  name  a  word  of  two 
syllables,  the  pronunciation  of  which  by  one  person  would 
ha,ve  been  a  crime.  The  abbess,  therefore,  repeated  the  first, 
and  Margarita,  by  her  direction,  the  last  syllable ;  and  by  this 
means,  both  evaded  all  criminality.1  Alexander,  Murray, 
Grotty,  and  Higgins,  in  like  manner,  partition  the  breach  of 
faith  between  the  council  and  the  emperor,  the  church  and 
state,  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  law,  and  by  this  simple  and 
easy  process,  exculpate  both  from  all  blame  or  violation  of 
faith.  Breach  of  trust,  it  seems,  loses,  in  this  way,  its  im- 
morality, and  is  transformed  into  duty.  Some  people,  however, 
unacquainted  with  the  new  system  of  Shandian  dialectics,  may 
suppose  that  this  learned  distinction,  instead  of  excriminating 
each,  only  rendered  both  guilty. 

The  faithlessness  of  the  council  and  the  emperor  has  been 
admitted  by  Sigismund,  the  French  clergy,  the  Diet  of  Worms, 
and  the  infallible  councils  of  Basil  and  Trent.  Sigismund,  on 
one  occasion,  seemed  sensible  of  his  own  infamy.  His  majesty 
accordingly  blushed  in  the  council,  when  Huss  appealed  to 
the  imperial  pledge  of  protection.  I  came  to  this  city,  said  the 
accused,  to  the  assembled  Fathers,  *  relying  on  the  public  faith 
of  the  emperor,  who  is  now  present;'  and,  whilst  he  uttered 
these  words,  '  he  looked  steadfastly  in  the  face  of  Sigismund, 
who,  feeling  the  truth  of  the  reproach,  blushed  for  his  own 
baseness.'2  Conscious  guilt  and  shame  crimsoned  his  coun- 
tenance, and  betrayed  the  inward  emotions  of  his  self-con- 
demned soul.  His  blush  was  an  extorted  and  unwilling 
acknowledgment  of  his  perfidy.  The  emperor,  it  is  plain, 
notwithstanding  modern  advocacy,  thought  himself  guilty. 

The  French  clergy,  according  to  De  Thou,  urged  the  Con- 
stantian  decision  as  a  precedent  for  a  similar  act  of  treachery.8 
The  French,  according  to  Gibert,  afterward,  in  temporizing 

1  Tristram  Shan.  c.  25. 

3  II  regarda  fixement  Sigismond,  qui  ne  put  s'empecher  de  rougir.  Lenfan.  1. 
403. 

3  Allato  in  earn  rem  Concilii  Constantiensis  decreto.  Thuanus,  3.  524.  Gibei% 
I.  106. 


VIOLATIONS    OF    OATHS    BY    POPISH    COUNCILS. 

inconsistency,  deprecated  the  infringement  of  the  imperial 
safeguard,  by  which  capital  punishment  was  inflicted  on  a 
man,  to  whom  had  been  promised  safety  and  impunity.  The 
French,  in  these  instances,  varied  indeed  with  the  times  on 
the  subject  of  breaking  trust,  and  exemplified  the  fluctuations 
which  occur  even  in  an  infallible  communion.  The  French 
clergy,  however,  in  both  cases,  both  in  their  urgency  and 
deprecation,  concurred  in  ascribing  perfidy  to  the  Constantian 
congress. 

The  Diet  of  Worms,  or,  at  least,  a  party  in  that  assembly, 
pleaded  the  precedent  of  synodal  and  imperial  treachery  at  the 
Constantian  assembly,  in  favour  of  breaking  faith  with  Luther.1 
This  showed  their  opinion  of  the  council.  Charles  V.  however, 
possessed  more  integrity  than  Sigismund,  '  and  was  resolved 
not  to  blush  with  his  predecessor.'2  The  Elector  Palatine 
supported  the  emperor ;  and  their  united  authority  defeated  the 
intended  design  of  treachery. 

The  councils  of  Basil  and  Trent,  in  the  safe-conducts 
granted  to  the  Bohemians  and  Germans,  admitted  the  same 
fact.  The  Basilians,  in  their  safe-conduct  to  the  Bohemians, 
disclaimed  all  intention  of  fallacy  or  deception,  open  or  con- 
cealed, prejudicial  to  the  public  faith,  founded  on  any  authority, 
power,  right,  law,  canon,  or  council,  especially  those  of  Con- 
stance or  Sienna.  The  Trentine  safe-conduct  to  the  German 
Protestants  is  to  the  same  effect.3  Both  these  documents, 
proceeding  from  general  councils,  reject,  for  themselves,  the 
Constantian  precedent  of  treachery,  and,  in  so  doing,  grant  its 
existence. 

The  general  council  of  Basil  copied  the  bad  example,  issued 
at  the  Lateran,  at  Lyons,  Pisa,  and  Constance.  This  unerring 
assembly,  in  its  fourth  session,  invalidated  all  oaths  and  obliga- 
tions, which  might  prevent  any  person  from  coming  to  the 
council.4  Attendance,  at  Basil,  it  was  alleged,  would  tend  to 
ecclesiastical  utility,  and  to  this  end,  even  at  the  expense  of 
perjury,  every  sacred  and  sworn  engagement  had  to  yield. 
The  sacred  synod,  in  its  thirty-fourth  session,  deposed  Eugenius 
for  simony,  perjury,  schism,  and  heresy,  and  absolved  all 


*  Qui  approuvant  ce  qui  c'etoit  fait  &  Constance,  disoient  qu'on  ne  devoit  point 
lui  garder  la  foi.     Paolo,  1.  28. 

8  Je  ne  veux  pas  rougir  avec  Sigismond,  mon  predecesseur.     Lenfant.  1.  404. 

3  Promittentes  sine  fraude  et  quolibet  dolo,  quod  nolumus  uti  aliqua  authoritate, 
vel  poteatia,  jure,  statuto,  vel  privilegio  legura   vel  canonum   et   quorumcumque 
eonciliorum,  specialiter  Constantiensis  in   aliquod   praejudicium   salvo  conductui 
Bin.  8.  25.  et  9.  398.     Crabb.  3.  17.     Labb.  17.  244.  et  20.  120. 

4  Ne  quis,  pra?textu  cujuscunque  juramenti,  vel  obligations,  aut  promissionis,  se 
ab  accessu  ad  concilium  dispeusatum  ciistimaret.     Alex.  25,  321.     Crabb.  3.  19. 


294  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Christians  from  their  sworn  obedience  to  his  Supremacy. 
The  pontiff  was  guilty  of  heterodoxy,  and,  therefore,  unworthy 
of  good  faith,  and  became  a  proper  object  of  treacheiy.  The 
holy  fathers,  in  the  thirty-seventh  session,  condemned  and 
annulled  all  compacts  and  oaths,  which  might  obstruct  the 
election  of  a  sovereign  pontiff.2  This  was  clever,  and  like 
men  determined  to  do  business. 

This  maxim,  in  this  manner,  prior  to  the  reformation,  ob- 
tained general  reception  in  the  popish  communion.  The  Roman 
hierarchs,  as  the  viceroys  of  heaven,  continued,  according  to 
interest  or  fancy,  and  especially  with  persons  convicted  or  sus- 
pected of  schism  or  apostacy,  to  invalidate  oaths  or  vows  of 
all  descriptions.  General  councils  arrogated  the  same  autho- 
rity, and  practised  the  same  infernal  principle.  Universal 
harmony,  without  a  breath  of  opposition,  prevailed  on  this  topic 
through  papal  Christendom.  This  abomination,  therefore,  in 
all  its  frightful  deformity,  constituted  an  integral  part  of 
popery. 

The  reformation,  on  this  subject,  commenced  a  new  era. 
The  deformity  of  the  papal  system  remained,  in  a  great  mea- 
sure, unnoticed  amid  the  starless  night  of  the  dark  ages,  and 
even  in  the  dim  twilight  which  dawned  on  the  world  at  the  re- 
vival of  letters.  The  hideous  spectre,  associated  with  kindred 
horrors  and  concealed  in  congenial  obscurity,  escaped  for  a  long 
time,  the  execration  of  man.  But  the  light  of  the  reformation 
exposed  the  monster  in  all  its  frightfulness.  The  Bible  began 
to  shed  its  lustre  through  the  world.  The  beams  of  the  Sun 
of  'Righteousness,  reflected  from  the  book  of  God,  poured  a 
flood  of  moral  radiance  over  the  earth.  Man  opened  his  eyes, 
and  the  foul  spirits  of  darkness  fled.  Intellectual  light  shed  its 
rays  thiough  the  mental  gloom  of  the  votary  of  Popery,  as  well 
as  the  patron  of  Protestantism. 

The  abettors  of  Romanism,  in  the  general  diffusion  of  scrip- 
tural information  and  rational  philosophy,  felt  ashamed  of 
ancient  absurdity ;  and  have,  in  consequence,  disowned  or 
modified  several  tenets  of  their  religion,  which  were  embraced, 
with  unshaken  fidelity,  by  their  orthodox  ancestors.  The  six 
universities  of  Louvain,  Douay,  Paris,  Alcala,  Valladolid,  and 
Salamanca,  which,  in  their  reply  to  Pitt's  questions,  disowned 
the  king-deposing  power,  disavowed  also  the  oath-annulling 
and  faith  violating  maxim.  The  Romish  Committee  of  Ireland, 
in  1792,  in  the  name  of  all  their  popish  countrymen,  represen- 

1  Omnes  Christicolas  ab  ipsius  obedeentia,  fidelitate,  ac  juramentis  absolvit. 
Labb.  17.  391.  Crabb.  3.  107. 

8  Promissiones,  obligationes,  juramenta,  in  adversum  hnjus  electionis,  damnat, 
reprobat  et  anuullat.  Crabb.  3.  109.  Labb.  17.  395. 


VIOLATIONS    OF    OATHS    BY    POPISH    COUNCILS.  295 

ted  the  latter  principle,  as  worthy  of  unqualified  reprobation 
and  destructive  of  all  morality  and  religion.  The  Irish  bishops, 
Murray,  Doyle,  and  Kelly,  in  their  examination  before  the 
British  Commons  in  1826,  disclaimed  all  such  sentiments  with 
becoming  an  3.  utter  indignation,  which  was  followed  at  the 
Maynooth  examination  by  the  deprecation  of  Grotty,  Slevin. 
and  M'Hale.1  This,  at  the  present  day,  seems  to  be  the  avowal 
of  all,  even  those  of  the  Romish  communion,  except  perhaps  a 
few  apostles  of  Jesuitism. 

This  change  is  an  edifying  specimen  of  the  boasted  immuta- 
bility of  Romanism,  and  one  of  the  triumphs  of  the  Reformation, 
by  which  it  was  produced.  The  universal  renunciation  of  the 
hateful  maxim  is  a  trophy  of  the  great  revolution,  which  Doyle, 
in  a  late  publication,  has  denominated  the  grand  apostacy. 

i  Com.  Report,  175,  227,  243,  659.    Grotty,   89.    Slevin,  258.     M'Hale,  288 
OLeary,  77,85. 


CHAPTER  IX. 


ARIANISM. 

MUNITARIANISM  OF  ANTIQUITY — ORIGIN  OF  THE  ARIAN  SYSTEM — ALEXANDRIA* 
AND  BITHYNIAN  COUNCILS — NICENE  AND  TYRIAN  COUNCILS — 8EMI-ARIANISM— > 
ANTIOCHIAN  AND  ROHAN  COUNCILS — SARDICAN,  ARLESIAN,  MILAN,  AND  SIRKIAt 
COUNCILS — LIBERIUS — FELIX — ARMENIAN,  SELEUCIAN,  AND  BYZANTINE  COUNCILS 
— STATK  OF  CHRISTENDOM — VARIETY  OF  CONFESSIONS. 

TRINIT ARIANISM,  though  without  system  or  settled  phraseology, 
was  the  faith  of  Christian  antiquity.  This  doctrine  indeed 
was  not  confined  to  Judaism  or  Christianity ;  but  may,  in  t» 
disfigured  and  uncouth  semblance,  be  discovered  in  the  annals 
of  gentilism  and  philosophy.  The  Persian,  Egyptian,  Grecian, 
Roman,  and  Scandinavian  mythology  exhibits  some  faint  traces, 
some  distorted  features  of  this  mystery,  conveyed,  no  doubt, 
through  the  defective  and  muddy  channels  of  tradition.  The 
same,  in  a  mis-shapen  form,  appears  in  the  Orphic  theology, 
aud  in  the  Zoroastrian,  Pythagorean,  and  Platonic  philosophy. 
The  system  which  tradition  in  broken  hints  and  caricatured 
representation  insinuated,  was  declared,  in  plain  language,  by 
revelation,  and  received,  in  full  confidence,  by  Christian  faith. 
The  early  Christians,  however,  unpractised  in  speculation, 
were  satisfied  with  acknowledging  the  essential  unity  and  per- 
sonal distinctions  of  the  Supreme  Being.  The  manner  of  the 
identity  and  personality,  the  unity  and  distinction  of  Father, 
Son,  and  Spirit,  had,  in  a  great  measure,  escaped  the  vain  re- 
search of  refinement  and  presumption.  Philosophy,  during  the 
lapse  of  three  ages  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity,  had 
not,  to  any  considerable  extent,  dared,  on  this  subject,  to  theo- 
rize or  define.  The  confidence  of  man,  in  those  days  of  sim- 
plicity, had  not  attempted  to  obtrude  on  the  arcana  of  heaven. 
The  relations  of  paternal,  filial,  and  processional  deity  escaped, 
in  this  manner,  the  eye  of  vain  curiosity,  and  remained,  in  con- 
sequence, undefined,  undisputed,  and  unexplained.  No  deter- 
mined or  dictatorial  expressions  being  prescribed  by  synodal  or 
imperial  authority,  the  unfettered  freedom  of  antiquity  ascribed 
to  the  several  divine  persons  in  the  Godhead,  all  the  perfections 


ORIGIN    OF    THE    ARIAN    SYSTEM.  297 

of  Deity.  This  liberty,  mdeed,  was  unfriendly  to  precision  of 
language  :  and  many  phrases,  accordingly,  were  used  by  the 
ancients  on  this  subject,  which  are  unmarked  with  accuracy. 
The  hostility  of  heresiarchs  first  taught  the  necessity  of  dis- 
crimination and  exactness  of  diction,  on  this  as  on  other  topics 
of  theology. 

Arius,  about  the  year  317,  was,  on  this  question,  the  first 
innovator  on  the  faith  of  antiquity,  whose  error  obtained  exten- 
sive circulation  or  was  attended  with  important  consequences. 
Artemon,  Paul,  Ebion,  and  a  few  other  speculators,  indeed, 
had,  on  this  topic,  broached  some  novel  opinions.  These, 
however,  were  local  and  soon  checked.  But  Arianism,  like 
contagion,  spread  through  Christendom  :  and  was  malignant  in 
its  nature  and  lasting  in  its  consequences. 

This  heresy  originated  in  Alexandria.  The  patriarch  of  that 
city,  whose  name  was  Alexander,  discoursing,  perhaps  with 
ostentation  on  the  trinity,  ascribed  consubstantiality  and  equality 
to  the  Son.  Arius,  actuated,  says  Theodoret,  with  envy  and 
ambition,  opposed  this  theory.  Epiphanius  represents  Arius, 
in  this  attempt,  as  influenced  by  Satan  and  inspired  by  the 
afflatus  of  the  Devil.  Alexander's  theology  seemed  to  Arius, 
to  destroy  the  unity  of  God  and  the  distinction  of  Father  and 
Son.1 

Epiphanius  has  drawn  a  masterly  and  striking  portrait  of 
Arius.  His  stature  was  tall  and  his  aspect  melancholy.  His 
whole  person,  like  the  wily  serpent,  seemed  formed  for  decep- 
tion. His  dress  was  simple  and  pleasing;  whilst  his  address 
and  conversation,  on  the  first  interview,  were  mild  and  winning. 
His  prepossessing  manner  was  calculated  to  captivate  the  mind, 
by  the  fascinations  of  gentleness  and  insinuation.  Sozomen 
and  Socrates  represent  Arius  as  an  able  dialectician,  and  a 
formidable  champion  in  the  thorny  field  of  controversy.2 

His  opinions,  on  the  topic  of  the  trinity,  differed  widely  from 
the  generality  of  his  fellow-Christians.  The  Son,  according  to 
his  view,  was  a  created  being,  formed  in  time  out  of  nothing 
by  the  plastic  power  of  the  Almighty.  Emmanuel,  in  this 
system,  does  not  possess  eternity.  A  time  was  in  which  he  did 
not  exist.  He  was,  according  to  this  statement,  unlike  the 
Father  in  substance,  subject  to  mutability,  and  liable  to  pain.3 

TheHeresiarch's  impiety  prevented  not  his  success  in  prose- 
lytism,  which  he  obtained,  in  a  great  measure,  by  his  extraor 
dinary  zeal  and  activity.  His  system  was  soon  embraced  loy 

1  Epiph.  1.  728.  Socrates,  I.  6.     Theodoret,  I.  2.     Alex.  7.  87. 

2  Epiph.  1.  729.  Socrates,  I.  5.     Sozomen,  I.  15.     Alex.  7.  86.     Godeau,  2.  101 

3  Theodor.  I.  2.  Sozomen,  I.  15.     Socrat.  I.  6.     Augrustin,  8.  C21.     Alex.  7.  3& 
Godeau,  2.  121. 


298  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

two  Egyptian  bishops,  seven  presbyters,  twelve  deacons,  and 
what   is  more   extraordinary,  by  700    devoted   virgins.     He 
boasted,  at  one  time,  of  being  followed  by  all  the  oriental 
clergy,   except  Philogonos,    Hellenicus,     and     Macarius,    of 
Antioch,    Tripoli,    and   Jerusalem.1 

The  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  in  the  mean  time,  having  ad- 
monished the  innovator  and  found  him  obstinate,  convened  a 
council  in  320,  consisting  of  about  100  Egyptian  and  Lybian 
bishops,  who  condemned  Arianism,  expelled  its  author,  with 
the  clergy  and  laity  of  his  faction,  from  the  church  and  from 
the  city.  Arius  went  to  Palestine,  where  some,  says  Epiph- 
anius,  received,  and  some  rejected  his  system.2  His  party, 
however,  soon  became  formidable.  The  Arians,  accordingly, 
assembled  a  synod,  and  exhibited  a  noble  display  of  their  unity 
with  the  Egyptians.  The  former  in  the  council  of  Bithynia, 
reversed  all  that  had  been  done  at  Alexandria.  Arius  was 
declared  orthodox  and  admitted  to  their  communion.  Circular 
letters  were  transmitted  to  the  several  bishops  of  the  church, 
for  the  purpose  of  inducing  them  to  follow  the  Bithynian 
example,  and  of  enjoining  the  same  on  the  patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria. 

The  Tyrian,  some  time  after,  counteracted  the  Nicerie  coun- 
cil, as  the  Bithynian  had  the  Alexandrian.  The  council  of 
Nicaea,  the  first  general  council,  convoked  by  the  emperor 
Constantine,  was  assembled  to  settle  the  Trinitarian  controver- 
sy, and  was  the  most  celebrated  ecclesiastical  congress  of 
antiquity.  The  clergy  were  summoned  from  the  several  parts 
of  Christendom,  and  about  318  attended.  Hosius,  in  the 
general  opinion,  was  honoured  with  the  presidency.  The 
assembled  fathers,  for  the  establishment  of  Trinitarianism  and 
the  extermination  of  Arianism,  declared  the  CONSUBSTANTIALITT 
of  the  Son.  This  celebrated  term,  indeed,  had,  about  sixty 
years  before,  been  rejected  by  the  synod  of  Antioch  and  by 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  in  opposition  to  Sabellianism.  Diony- 
sius,  however,  had  rejected  it  merely  because  unscriptural ; 
but  afterward  used  it  in  an  epistle  to  the  Roman  hierarch. 
The  Antiochian  fathers  omitted  it,  because  it  seemed,  in  the 
perverted  explanation  of  the  Paulicians,  to  favour  Sabellianism, 
and  militate  against  the  distinct  personality  of  the  Son.  The 
word,  however,  came  into  use  soon  after  the  apostolic  age. 
Tertullian,  arguing  against  Praxeas,  employs  an  expression  of 
the  same  import.  The  term,  according  to  Ruffinus,  was  found 
vn  the  works  of  Origen.3  The  Arians,  only  three  in  number, 

1  Epiph.  II.  69.  P.  729.     Sozomen,  I.  15.     Godea.  2.  120. 

»  Epiph.  I.  729.     Euseh.  III.  6,  7.     Sozomen,  I.  15.     Alex.  7.  91. 

»  Epiph.  1.  735.   Socrat.  1.  8.   Tertullian,  502.  c.  4.   Alex.  7.  122.   Juenin,  3.  60 


NICENE    AND    TYRIAN    COUNCILS.  29G 

who  refused  subscription,  were,  according  to  the  unchristian 
custom  of  the  age,  anathematized  and  banished. 

The  Tyrian  synod,  though  only  provincial,  endeavoured  to 
counteract  the  supreme  authority  of  the  general  Nicene  coun- 
cil. This  assembly,  which  was  convened  by  the  emperor  in 
335,  consisted  of  about  sixty  of  the  eastern  episcopacy. 
Athanasius,  who  was  compelled  to  appear  as  a  criminal, 
accused  of  the  foulest  but  most  unfounded  imputations,  attended 
with  about  forty  Egyptians.  Dionysius,  with  the  imperial 
guards,  was  commissioned  to  prevent  commotion  or  disorder. 
The  Arian  faction  was  led  by  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  with 
passion  and  tyranny.  The  whole  scene  combined  the  noisy 
fury  of  a  mob,  and  the  appalling  horrors  of  an  inquisition. 
Athanasius,  notwithstanding,  with  admirable  dexterity,  exposed 
the  injustice  of  the  council  and  vindicated  his  own  innocence. 
The  champion  of  Trinitarianism,  however,  would  have  been 
murdered  by  the  bravoes  of  Arianism,  had  not  the  soldiery 
rescued  the  intended  victim  from  assassination.  He  embarked 
in  a  ship  and  escaped  their  holy  vengeance.1  But  the  sacred 
synod,  in  his  absence,  did  not  forget  to  pronounce  sentence  of 
excommunication  and  banishment. 

The  Antitrinitarians,  soon  after  the  Nicene  council,  split  into 
several  factions,  distinguished  by  different  names.  The  Arians 
and  Semi-Arians,  however,  predominated.  The  Arians  fol- 
lowed the  system  of  their  founder,  and  continued  to  maintain 
the  DISSIMILARITY  of  the  Son.  The  Semi-Arians,  approxima- 
ting to  the  Nicenians,  asserted  his  SIMILARITY.2  Arianism, 
indeed,  in  the  multiplicity  of  its  several  forms,  occupies  all  the 
immense  space  between  Socinianism,  which  holds  the  Son's 
mere  humanity,  and  Trinitarianism,  which  maintains  his  true 
deity.  This  intermediate  distance  seems  to  have  been  filled 
by  the  Antitrinitarian  systems  of  the  fourth  century,  as  they 
ascribed  more  or  less  perfection  to  the  second  person  of  the 
Godhead.  The  Arians  and  Semi-Arians,  however,  wrangling 
about  the  similarity  and  dissimilarity,  showed  the  utmost 
opposition  and  hatred  to  each  other,  as  well  as  to  the  Nicenians 
who  contended  for  the  consubstantiality. 

The  Semi-Arians  and  Trinitarians  soon  came  to  action,  in 
the  Antiochian  a.nd  Roman  synods.  Julius,  the  Roman  pontiff, 
assembled  a  Roman  council  of  fifty  Italian  bishops,  in  which 
Athanasius  was  acquitted  and  admitted  to  communion.  The 
Greeks,  in  the  mean  time,  assembled  at  ^Antioch,  and  opened 

1  Socrat.  1.  28-34.  Sozom.  II.  25-28.  Theod.  I.  30.  Alex.  7.  132.  Godeau, 
2.  182. 

e  Epiph.  II.  73.  P.  485.     Alex.  7.  95. 


300  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

a  battery  against  the  enemy.1  These,  amounting  to  ninety, 
degraded  Athanasius,  and  issued  three  Semi-Arian  creeds, 
which  differing  in  other  particulars,  concurred  in  rejecting  the 
con  substantiality. 

The  council  of  Sardica  in  347,  declared  for  Athanasius  and 
Trinitarianism,  and  was  opposed  by  that  of  Philippopolis  in 
Thracia.  The  Sardican  assembly  consisted  of  about  300  of 
the  Latins,  and  the  other  of  about  seventy  of  the  Greeks. 
The  hostile  councils  encountered  each  other  with  their  spiritual 
artillery,  and  hurled  the  thunders  of  mutual  excommunication. 
The  Latins  at  Sardica  cursed  and  degraded  the  Aria  us  with 
great  devotion.  The  Greeks  at  Philippopolis,  retorting  the 
imprecations  with  equal  piety,  condemned  the  consubstantiality, 
and  excommunicated  Athanasius  the  Alexandrian  patriarch, 
Julius  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  their  whole  party.  Athanasius, 
in  this  manner,  stigmatised  in  the  east  as  a  sinner,  was  revered 
in  the  west  as  a  saint.  Accounted  the  patron  of  heresy  among 
the  Greeks,  he  was  reckoned,  among  the  Latins,  the  champion 
of  Catholicism.  Having  devoted  each  other  to  Satan  with 
mutual  satisfaction,  the  pious  episcopacy  proceeded  to  the 
secpndary  task  of  enacting  forms  of  faith.  The  western  pre- 
lacy were  content  with  the  Nicene  confession.  The  oriental 
clergy  published  an  ambiguous  creed  faintly  tinged  with  Semi- 
Arianism.2 

The  Sardican  council  was  the  last  stand  which  the  Latins, 
during  the  reign  of  Constantius,  made  for  Athanasius  and 
Trinitarianism.  The  Greeks,  who  were  mostly  Arians,  were 
joined  by  the  Latins,  and  both  in  concert,  in  the  councils  of 
Aries,  Milan,  Sirmium,  Ariminum,  Seleucia,  and  Constantino- 
ple, condemned  Athanasius  and  supported  Arianism. 

The  Synod  of  Aries,  in  353,  commenced  hostilities  against 
Consubstantiality  and  its  Alexandrian  champion.  Constantius 
had  long,  with  the  utmost  anxiety,  wished  the  western  prelacy 
to  condemn  the  Alexandrian  metropolitan.  But  the  emperor, 
on  account  of  his  enemy's  popularity,  and  the  reviving  freedom 
of  the  Roman  government,  proceeded  with  caution  and  diffi- 
culty. The  Latins  met  at  Aries,  where  Marcellus  and  Vincent, 
who,  from  their  capacity  and  experience,  were  expected  to 
maintain  the  dignity  of  their  legation,  represented  the  Roman 
hierarch.  Valens  and  Ursacius,  who  were  veterans  in  faction, 
led  the  Arian  and  Imperial  party ;  and  succeeded  by  the 
superiority  of  their  tactics  and  the  influence  of  their  sovereign, 
in  procuring  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius.3 

1  Socrat.  11.  7.     Bin.  1.  519.     Alex.  7.  151.     Godeau,  2.  20. 

2  Theod.  11.  8.     Socrat.  11.  20.    Bin.  1.  558.     Alex.  7    153.     Bruys,  1.  112. 
»  Bin.  1.  589.     Labb.  2.  823.     Bruys,  1.  115. 


COUNCILS    OF    SARDICA,    ARLES,    AND   MILAN.  301 

The  Synod  of  Aries  was,  in  355,  succeeded  by  that  of 
Milan,  and  attended  with  similar  consequences.  This  conven- 
tion, summoned  by  Constantius,  consisted  of  about  300  of  the 
western  and  a  few  of  the  oriental  clergy.  The  assembly, 
which,  in  number  appears  to  have  equalled  the  Nicene  council; 
seemed,  at  first,  to  favour  the  Nicene  faith  and  its  intrepid 
defender.  Dionysius,  Eusebius,  Lucifer,  and  Hilary  made  a 
vigorous,  though  an  unsuccessful  stand.  But  the  integrity  of 
the  bishops  was  gradually  undermined  by  the  sophistry  of  the 
Ariiins  and  the  solicitation  of  the  emperor,  who  gratified  his 
revenge  at  the  expense  of  his  dignity,  and  exposed  his  own 
passions  while  he  influenced  those  of  the  clergy.  Reason  and 
truth  were  silenced  by  the  clamours  of  a  venal  majority.  The 
Arians  were  admitted  to  communion,  and  the  hero  of  trinita- 
rianism  was,  with  all  due  solemnity,  condemned  by  the  formal 
judgment  of  western  as  well  as  eastern  Christendom. 

The  decisions  of  Aries  and  Milan  were  corroborated  by 
those  of  Sirmium.  The  Sirmian  assembly,  convoked  by  the 
emperor  and  celebrated  in  the  annals  of  antiquity,  consisted, 
says  Sozomen,1  of  both  Greeks  and  Latins ;  and,  therefore,  in 
the  usual  acceptation  of  the  term,  was  a  general  council.  The 
westerns,  according  to  Binius,  amounted  to  more  than  three 
hundred,  and  the  easterns,  in  all  probability,  were  equally 
numerous.  The  fathers  of  Sirmium  must  have  been  about 
double  those  of  Nicsea.2  The  assembly  seems  to  have  had  sev- 
eral sessions  at  considerable  intervals,  and  its  chronology  has 
been  adjusted  by  Petavius  and  Valesius. 

The  Sirmians  emitted  three  forms  of  faith.  The  first,  in 
351,  omits  the  consubstantiality,  but  contains  no  express  decla- 
ration against  the  divinity  of  the  Son.  This  exposition, 
which  Athanasius  accounted  Arian,  Gelasius,  Hilary,  and 
Facundus  reckoned  Trinitarian.3  The  eastern  and  western 
champions  of  the  faith  differed,  in  this  manner,  on  the  orthodoxy 
of  a  creed,  issued  by  a  numerous  council  and  confirmed  by  a 
Roman  pontiff.  Athanasius  condemned,  as  heresy,  a  confes- 
sion which  Hilary,  supported  in  the  rear  by  his  infallibility 
Pope  Gelasius,  approved  as  Catholicism.  This  was  an  admi- 
rable display  of  unity.  The  second  formulary  of  Sirmium,  in 
357,  contains  pure  Arianism.  The  consubstantiality  and 
similarity,  in  this  celebrated  confession,  are  rejected,  and  the 
Son,  in  honour  and  gl">ry,  represented  as  inferior  to  the  Father 

1  Soz.  IV.  9.     Socrat.  2.  36      Bin.  1.  289.     Labb.  2.  827. 

2  Socrat.  II.  30.     Sozomen,  IV.  6.     Bin.  1.  593,  594,  595. 

3  Hilarius  illam  fonnulam  nun  improbat,  irao  censet  Catholicara.     Sed  ab  Atha> 
nasio  rejicitur  tanquam  opus,  quo  Ariana  impietas,  implicate  saltern,  coutineretur 
Juenin,  3.  70.     Alex.  7.  170.     Labb.  2.  846.     Godeau,  2.  282. 


302  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

who  alone  possesses  the  attributes  of  eternity,  invisibility,  and 
immortality.  The  third,  which  was  afterward  adopted  in  the 
Armenian  synod,  is  Semi-Arian.  Rejecting  the  con  substanti- 
ality, as  unscriptural,  it  asserts  the  similarity  of  the  Son. 

The  second  Sirmian  confession  was  confirmed  by  Pope  Libe- 
rius. Baronius,  Alexander,  Binius,  and  Juenin  indeed  have 
laboured  hard  to  show  that  the  creed  which  Liberius  signed,  was 
not  the  second,  but  the  first  of  Sirmium,  which,  according  to 
Hilary,  was  orthodox.1  But  the  unanimous  testimony  of  history 
is  against  this  opinion.  Du  Pin  has  stated  the  transactions,  on 
this  occasion,  with  his  usual  candour  and  accuracy.  The  Ro- 
man bishop,  according  to  this  author,  subscribed  the  second  of 
Sirmium,  which  was  Arian,  while  an  exile  at  Berea,  and  the 
first  of  the  same  city,  which  was  Semi-Arian,  afterwards  at  the 
place  in  which  it  was  issued.  *  All  antiquity,  with  one  consent, 
admits  the  certainty  of  this  Pontiff*' s  subscription  to  an  Arian 
creed,  and  speaks  of  his  fall  as  an  apostacy  from  the  faith.'2  Du 
Pin's  statement  and  the  Arianism  of  the  Sirmian  confession, 
which  Liberius  signed,  has  been  attested  by  Liberius,  Hilary, 
Athanasius,  Jerom,  Philostorgius,  Damasus,  Anastasius,  and 
Sozomen. 

Liberius  himself,  in  his  epistle  to  his  oriental  clergy,  declared, 
that  he  signed,  at  Berea,  the  confession  which  was  presented 
to  him  by  Demophilus,  a  decided  and  zealous  partizan  of  Ari- 
anism. Demophilus,  the  Roman  pontiff  writes, « explained  the 
Sirmian  faith,  which  Liberius,  with  a  willing  mind,  afterward 
subscribed.'  He  avers,  in  the  same  production,  that '  he  agreed 
with  the  oriental  bishops,'  who  were  notoriously  Arian,  '  in  ill 
things.'3 

The  sainted  Hilary  calls  Liberius  a  prevaricator,  designates 
the  confession  issued  at  Sirmium,  proposed  by  Demophilus,  and 
signed  by  the  pontiff,  '  the  Arian  perfidy,'  and  launches  '  three 
anathemas  against  his  holiness  and  his  companions,  who  were 
all  heretics.'4  Hilary's  account  shows,  in  the  clearest  terms, 
that  it  was  not  the  first  Sirmian  formulary  which  Liberius 
signed.  This,  Hilary  accounted  orthodox,  and  therefore  would 
not  denominate  it  a  perfidy. 

Athanasius  confirms  the  relation  of  Hilary  and  the  apostacy 
of  Liberius,  '  who,  through  fear  of  death,  subscribed.'  Jerome 

i  Spon.  357.  XIII.  Alex.  7.  117.     Bin.  1.  576. 

8  Omnes  antiqui,  uiio  ore,  de  lapsu  Liberii,  velut  de  apostasia  a  fide  loquuntur 
Du  Pin,  347. 

3  Videtis  in  omnibus  me  vobis  consentaneum  esge.     H'anc  ego  libenti  animo,  su* 
cepi.     Bin.  1.  582.     Hilary,  Fragm.  426.     Juenin,  3.  75.     Maimburg,  103. 

4  Haec  est  perfidia  Ariana.     Anathema,  tibi  a  me  dictum,  Liberi,  et  sociis  luis, 
Iterum  tibi  anathema  et  tertio  prevaricator,  Liberi.  Hilary,  in  Fragm.   426,  427 


POPE    LIBERIUS    AN     ARIAN.  303 

of  sainted  memory  has,  in  his  catalogue  and  chronicon,  related 
the  same  fact.  Fortunatian,  says  the  saint,  *  urged,  and  sub- 
dued, and  constrained  Liberius  to  the  subscription  of  heresy.' 
Liberius,  says  the  same  author,  '  weary  of  banishment,  signed 
neretical  depravity.'  Liberius  according  to  Philostorgius, 
'  subscribed  against  Athanasius  and  the  Consubstantialitv.' 
This  pontiff,  says  Damasus  in  his  pontifical,  and  Anastasius  in 
his  history,  *  consented  to  the  heretic  Con  stan  this.'  The 
emperor,  says  Sozomen,  '  forced  Liberius  to  deny  the  consub- 
stantiality.'1 

Liberius,  Hilary,  Athanasius,  Jerome,  Philostorgius,  Da- 
masus, and  Anastasius,  in  this  statement,  have,  in  more  modern 
times,  been  followed  by  Platina,  Auxilius,  Eusebius,  Cusan, 
Areolus,  Mezeray,  Bruys,  Petavius,  Avocat,  Gerson,  Vignier, 
Marian,  Alvarius,  Bede,  Sabellicus,  Gerson,  Regino,  Alphon- 
sus,  Caron,  Tostatus,  Godeau,  Du  Pin,  and  Maimbourg. 
Liberius,  says  Platina,  *  agreed  in  all  things  with  the  heretics 
or  Arians.'  Auxilius,  Eusebius,  Cusan,  Areolus,  Mezeray, 
Bruys,  Petavius,  Avocat,  Gerson,  Vignier,  Marian,  and  Alvarius 
represent  Liberius,  as  subscribing  or  consenting  to  an  Arian 
confession.  Bede,  the  English  historian  in  his  martyrology, 
characterizes  this  pontiff,  like  the  Emperor  Constantius,  as  a 
partizan  of  Arianism.  Liberius,  accordingto  Sabellicus,  Gerson, 
Regino,  Alphonsus,  Caron  and  Tostatus,  was  an  Arian.  This 
pontiff,  says  Godeau,  '  subscribed  the  Sirmian  confession  and 
concurred  with  the  oriential  clergy,  who  were  the  patrons  of 
heresy.  His  condemnation  of  Athanasius,  at  this  time,  was  the 
condemnation  of  Catholicism.'  Du  Pin  bears  testimony  of  this 
pontiff's  apostacy,  in  signing  the  second  confession  of  Sirmium. 
The  Roman  hierarch,  says  this  author  in  his  History  and  Dis- 
sertations, subscribed  botji  to  Arianism  and  Semi-Arianism  ; 
while  all  the  ancients,  with  the  utmost  unanimity,  testify  his  de- 
fection from  Trinitarianism.  Maimbourg,  though  a  Jesuit,  admits 
the  pontiff's  solemn  approbation  of  Arianism,  and  his  fall  into 
the  abyss  of  heresy.2 


toy  aTttihovpvov  0cwaf  ov,  vrteypo^tv.  Athanasius,  ad  Sol.  —  Solicita- 
vit  ac  fregit  et  ad  subscriptionem  haeresios  compulit.  Jerom.  4.  124.  Libe- 
rius tsedio  victus  exilii  et  in  haeretica  pravitate  subscribens.  Jerom  in  Chron. 
At-jfopiov  acata  T'OV  O/AOKGIOV  xai,  fitjv  xcu  xatu  ye  fov  AOavaoiov  vrtoypa^au 
Philos.  IV.  3.  Liberius  conseiisit  Constantio  haeretico.  Anastasius,  11.  Bin.  1.576 
EjSia^fT'o  awto  opoKoysw  p.y  swat  i!<&  ILxT'pt  ifov  vtov  opotiaiov*  Sozomen,  IV.  5. 

2  In  rebus  omnibus  sensit  cum  hsDreticis.  Pontifexcum  Arianis  sentiebat.  Pla- 
tina in  Liber.  Quis  nesciat  quod  Liberius,  proh  dolor,  Arianae  haeresi  subscrip- 
eerit.  Auxilius,  1.  25.  Alex.  9.  17. 

Doleret  Liberium  Papam  Arianae  perfidiae  consensisse.  Euseb.  in  Brev.  Rom 
Launoy,  1.  126. 

Liberius  consensit  errori  Arianorum.     Cusan,  II.  5.     Carou,  87. 

Liberius  in  illam  pravitatem  subscripsissit.     Areolus  in  Oaron,  96. 


304  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  ! 

His  supremacy's  fall  from  Trinitarianism,  indeed,  is  attested 
by  all  antiquity  and  by  all  the  moderns,  who  have  any  preten- 
sions to  candour  or  honesty.  The  relation  has  been  denied 
only  by  a  few  men,  such  as  Baronius  and  Bellarmine,  whose 
days  were  spent  in  the  worthy  task  of  concealing  or  perve  rt- 
ing  the  truth.  These,  utterly  destitute  of  historical  authority, 
have  endeavoured  to  puzzle  the  subject  by  misrepresentation 
and  chicanery.  Baronius  maintains  the  orthodoxy  of  the 
Sirmian  confession  signed  by  the  Roman  pontiff.  The  annalist, 
on  this  topic,  has  the  honour  to  differ  from  the  saints  and  his- 
torians of  antiquity,  such  as  Hilary,  Athanasius,  Jerome, 
Damasus,  and  Sozomen.  His  infallibility,  according  to  Bel- 
larmine, encouraged  Arianism  only  in  external  action  ;  while 
his  mind,  '  that  noble  seat  of  thought,'  remained  the  unspotted 
citadel  of  genuine  Catholicism.  This  was  very  clear  and 
sensible  in  the  Jesuit,  who  seems  to  have  been  nearly  as  good 
at  distinctions  as  Walter  Shandy. 

The  pontiff's  vindicators,  such  as  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius, 
Juenin,  Faber,  Dens,  and  Bossuet,  who  deny  his  Arianism, 
admit  his  condemnation  of  Athanasius,  his  communion  with  the 
Arians,  and  his  omission  of  the  consubstantiality.  These 
errors,  which  are  acknowledged,  amount,  in  reality,  to  a  pro- 
fession of  Arianism  and  an  immolation  of  the  truth.  The  cause 
of  Athanasius,  says  Maimbourg,  'was  inseparable  from  the 
faith  which  he  defended '  The  condemnation  of  the  Trinita- 

Liberius  etaut  tombfc  en  heresie.     Mezeray,  5G1 

Concile  de  Sirmium  aiant  dresse  une  profession  de  foi  en  faveur  de  1'arianisme 
Libere  y  souscrivit.  Bruys,  1.  118. 

Liberius  subscripsit  Arianorum  fidei  profession!.     Petavius,  2.  134. 

Liberius  cut  la  foiblesse  de  souserire  a  une  formule  de  fai  dressee  a  Sirmieli 
avec  beaucoup  d'artifice  par  les  Ariens.  Avocat,  2.  67. 

Legimus  Liberium  Ariante  pravitati  subscripsisse.     Gerson  in  Cossant,  3.  1156. 

Liberius  souscrivit  a  la  doctrine  des  Ariens.     Vignier,  3.  879. 

Liberius  taedio  victus  exilii,  in  hseretica  privitate  subscribens,  Marian,  in  Crabb 
1.  347.  Liberius  Papa  Arianse  perfidiae  consensit.  Alvarus,  II.  10. 

Sub  Constantio  Imperatore  Ariano  machinante,  Liberio  pnesule  similiter  ha?  ret- 
co.  Beda,  3.  326.  Marty.  19.  Calend.  Sept. 

Arianus,  ut  quidam  scribunt,  est  factus.     Sabell.  Enn.  7.  L.  8. 

Libere  souscrivit  1'Arianisme.     Gerson  in  Lenfan.     Pisa,  1.  286. 

Liberius  reversus  ab  exilio,  haereticis  favet.     Regin.  1. 

De  Liberio  Pape,  constat  fuisse  Arianum.     Alphonsus,  I.  4.     Caron.  96. 

Vere  Arianus  fuit.     Caron.  c.  18. 

Quilibet  homo  potest  errare  in  fide,  et  effici  haereticus :  sicut  de  multis  summis. 
Pontificibus  legimus  ut  de  Liberio.  Tostatus,  in  Laun.  ad  Metay.  16. 

On  ne  peut  nier  qu'ils  ne  fussent  heretiques.     Godeau,  2.  286. 

Liberius  fidei  formula?  haereticse  subscripsit.     Du  Pin,  347. 

Liberius  approuva  solennellement  1'Arianisme  tomber  dans  1'abime  de  1'heresie 
Maimburg,  c.  10. 


COUNCILS    OF    ARIMINUM    AND    S"ELEUCIA.  306 

rian  chief,  according  to  Godeau  and  Moreri,  *  was  tantamount 
to  the  condemnation  of  Catholicism.'1 

The  Papal  church,  therefore,  in  its  representation  at  Sir- 
mium,  through  the  oriental  and  occidental  communion,  was,  in 
this  manner,  guilty  of  general  apostacy.  Its  head  and  its  mem- 
bers, or  the  Roman  pontiff  and  his  clergy,  conspired,  through 
eastern  and  western  Christendom,  against  Catholicism,  and  fell 
into  heresy.  The  defection  extended  to  the  Greeks  and  Latins, 
and  was  sanctioned  by  the  pope.  No  fact,  in  all  antiquity,  is 
better  attested  than  this  event,  in  which  all  the  cotemporary 
historians  concur,  without  a  single  discord  to  interrupt  the 
general  harmony. 

The  world,  on  this  occasion,  was  blessed  with  two  cotem- 
porary Artan  Pontiffs.  During  the  expatriation  of  Liberius, 
Felix  was  raised  to  the  papacy,  and  remains  to  the  present  day 
a  saint  and  a  martyr  of  Romanism.  This  Hierarch  notwith- 
standing, was,  without  any  lawful  election,  ordained  by  Arian 
bishops,  communicated  with  the  Arian  party,  embraced,  say 
Socrates  and  Jerome,  the  Arian  heresy,  and  violated  a  solemn 
oath,  which,  with  the  rest  of  the  Roman  clergv?  he  had  taken, 
to  acknowledge  no  other  bishop  while  Liberius  lived.  Atha- 
nasius,  the  champion  of  Trinitarianism,  was  so  ungenteel  as  to 
style  this  saint,  '  a  monster,  raised  to  the  Papacy  by  the  malice 
of  Antichrist.'2  The  church,  at  this  time,  had  two  Arian  heads, 
and  God  had  two  heretical  vicars-general.  One  viceroy  of 
heaven  was  guilty  of  Arianism,  and  the  other,  both  of  Arianism 
and  perjury.  Baronius  and  Bellarmine  should  have  informed 
Christendom,  which  of  these  vice-gods,  or  whether  both,  pos- 
sessed the  attribute  of  infallibility. 

The  councils  of  Ariminum,  Seleucia,  and  Constantinople  fol- 
lowed the  defection  of  Liberius,  and  displayed,  in  a  striking 
point  of  view,  the  versatility  of  the  Papal  communion  and  the 
triumph  of  the  Arian  heresy.  Constantius  had  designed  to  call 
a  general  council,  for  the  great,  but  impracticable  purpose  of 
effecting  unanimity  of  faith  through  all  the  precincts  of  eastern 
and  western  Christendom ;  and  Arianism,  in  the  emperor's 
intention,  was  to  be  the  standard  of  uniformity.  His  majesty, 
however,  was  diverted,  probably  by  the  intrigues  of  the  Arians, 
from  the  resolution  of  convening  the  Greeks  and  Latins  in  one 
assembly.  Two  councils,  therefore,  one  in  the  east  and  the 

1  On  ne  pent  nier  que  condamner  Athanase,  ne  fut  condemnerla  foi  Catholique. 
Godeau,  5.  286.  Moreri,  5.  154.  Maimburg,  IV.  Bellarmin,  IV.  9.  Bin.  1.  593. 

Verum  est  Liberium  cum  Arianis  communicasse  et  subscripsisse  damnationi 
Athanasii.  Dens,  2.  163. 

Liberius  rejetta  la  communion  d' Athanase,  communia  avec  les  Ariens,  et  suscru 
vit  une  confession  de  foi,  ou  la  foi  de  Nicee  etoit  supprimee.  Bossuet,  Opus.  2.  545 

3  Athan.  ad  Sol.     Theod.  II.  17.     Socrat.  II.  37.     Sozemen,  IV.  11. 

20 


306  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

other  in  the  west,  were  appointed  to  meet  at  the  same  time. 
The  westerns  were  instructed  to  meet  at  Ariminum  and  the 
easterns  at  Seleucia.  The  Ariminian  council,  which  met  in 
359,  consisted  of  400,  or,  as  some  say,  600  western  bishops, 
from  Italy,  Africa,  Spain,  Gaul,  Britain,  and  Illyricum.1  The 
Arian  party,  in  this  convention,  was  small,  amounting  only  to 
about  80  ;  but  was  led  by  Valens  and  Ursacius,  who  trained 
under  the  Eusebian  banners  in  the  ecclesiastical  wars  of  the 
east,  had  been  practised  in  faction  and  popular  discussion, 
which  gave  them  a  superiority  over  the  undisciplined  eccles- 
iastical soldiery  of  the  west. 

The  council,  at  first,  assumed  a  high  tone  of  orthodoxy.  The 
consubstantiality  was  retained,  the  Nicene  faith  confirmed,  and 
the  Arian  heresy  condemned  with  the  usual  anathemas.  The 
Ariminians,  unsatisfied  with  the  condemnation  of  Arianism, 
proceeded  next  to  point  their  spiritual  artillery  against  his  par- 
tizans.2  These  were  sacrificed  to  the  interests  of  the  Nicene 
theology,  and  hurled  from  their  episcopal  thrones,  as  an  immo- 
lation to  the  offended  genius  of  Trintarianism. 

But  the  end  of  this  assembly  disgraced  the  beginning.  Ursa- 
cius and  Valens,  experienced  in  wordy  war  and  skilled  in  syno- 
dal tactics,  rallied  their  flying  forces,  and  charged  the  victorious 
enemy  with  menace  and  sophistry.  These  veterans  summoned 
to  their  aid,  the  authority  of  the  emperor  and  the  control  of  the 
Prefect,  who  was  commissioned  to  banish  the  refractory,  if  they 
did  not  exceed  fifteen.  The  chicanery  of  the  Semi-Arian  faction 
embarrassed,  confounded,  and,  at  last,  deceived  the  ignorance 
or  simplicity  of  the  Latin  prelacy,  who,  by  fraud  and  intimida,- 
tion,  yielded  to  the  enemy,  and  surrendered  the  palladium  of 
the  Nicenian  faith.  The  authority  of  Constantius,  the  influence 
of  Taurus,  the  stratagems  of  Ursacius  and  Valens,  the  dread 
of  banishment,  the  distress  of  hunger  and  cold,  extorted  the 
reluctant  subscription  of  the  Ariminian  Fathers  to  a  Semi-Arian 
form  of  faith,  which  established  the  similarity  of  the  Son,  but 
suppressed  the  consubstantiality.  The  suppression,  however, 
did  not  satisfy  the  Semi-Arian  party.  An  addition  was  sub- 
joined, declaring  « the  son  unlike  other  creatures.'  This  plainly 
implied  that  the  Son  is  a  created  being,  though  of  a  superior 
order  and  of  a  peculiar  kind.  The  western  clergy,  in  this 
manner  were  bubbled  out  of  their  religion.  All,  says  Prosper, 
*  condemned,  through  treachery,  the  ancient  faith,  and  sub- 
scribed the  perfidy  of  Ariminum.'8  The  crafty  dexterity  of 

*  Theod.  II.  18.     Epiph.  1.  870.     Hilary,  428.     Alex.  7.  180.     Godeau,  2.  t96 

2  Theod.  II.  16      Labbeus,  2.  896,  912.     Paolo,  2.  106.     Juenin,  3.  71. 

3  Syuodus  apud  Ariminum  et  Seleuciam  Isauriae  facta,  in  qua  antiqua  patrura 
fides  decem  primo  legatorum  dehinc  omnium  proditione  damnata  est.     Prosper,  1. 
423.     Socrat.  II.  37.     Sozomen,  IV.  19. 


VARIETY    OP    CONFESSIONS.  307 

the  Semi-Arians  gulled  the  silly  simplicity  or  gross  ignorance 
of  the  Trinitarians,  who,  according  to  their  own  story,  soon 
repented.  Arianism,  said  the  French  chancellor  at  Poissy, 
was  established  by  the  general  council  of  Ariminum. 

The  eastern  clergy,  in  the  mean  time,  met  at  Seleucia,  and 
exhibited  a  scene  of  confusion,  fury,  tumult,  animosity,  and 
nonsense,  calculated  to  excite  the  scorn  of  the  infidel  and  the 
pity  of  the  wise.  Nazianzen  calls  this  assembly  *  the  tower 
of  Babel  and  the  council  of  Caiaphas.'  An  hundred  and  sixty 
bishops  attended.  The  Semi-Arians  amounted  to  about  one 
hundred  and  five,  the  Arians  to  forty,  and  the  Trinitarians  to 
fifteen,  Leonas,  the  Quaestor,  attended,  as  the  Emperor's  deputy, 
to  prevent  tumult.  The  Arians  and  Semi-Arians  commenced 
furious  debates  on  the  Son's  similarity,  dissimilarity,  and  con- 
substantiality.  Dissension  and  animosity  arose  to  such  a  height, 
that  Leonas  withdrew,  telling  the  noisy  ecclesiastics,  that  his 
presence  was  not  necessary  to  enable  them  to  wrangle  and  scold. 
The  Semi-Arian  creed  of  Antioch,  however,  was,  on  the  motion 
of  Sylvan,  recognized  and  subscribed  ;  and  the  Arians  withdrew 
from  the  assembly.  The  Arians  and  a  deputation  from  the 
Semi-Arians  afterwards  appeared  at  court,  to  plead  their  cause 
before  the  emperor,  who  obliged  both  to  sign  the  last  Sirmian 
confession,  which,  dropping  the  con  substantiality,  established 
the  similarity  of  the  Son  in  all  things.1 

The  Byzantine  synod,  which  met  in  360,  confirmed  the  last 
Sirmian  confession.  This  assembly  consisted  of  fifty  bishops 
of  Bythinia,  who  were  the  abettors  of  Arianism.  All  these, 
though  Arians,  adopted  the  Sirmian  formulary,  which  sanc- 
tioned *  the  similarity  of  the  son  in  all  things.'  This,  these 
dissemblers  did  to  flatter  the  emperor,  who  patronized  this 
system.  All  other  forms  of  belief  were  condemned,  the  Acts 
of  the  Seleucian  synod  repealed,  and  the  chief  patrons  of  the 
Semi-Arian  heresy  deposed.2 

The  Arians,  supported  by  the  emperor,  continued  the  perse- 
cution of  the  Nicene  faith,  till  the  world,  in  general,  became 
Arian.  The  contagion  of  heresy,  like  a  desolating  pestilence, 
spread  through  the  wide  extent  of  eastern  and  western  Chris- 
tendom. The  melancholy  tale  has,  among  others,  been  attested 
by  Sozomen,  Jerome,  Basil,  Augustine,  Vincentius,  Prosper, 
Beda,  Baronius,  and  Labbeus.8 

1  Godeau,  2.  302.  Nazianzen  Or.  21.  Labbeus,  2.  915.  Sozomen,  IV.  22. 
Socrat.  II.  39,  40.  Alex.  7.  185. 

8  Socrat.  II.  41.     Labbeus,  3.  72.     Juenin,  3.  72. 

3  Eftoxci  tots  SKI  Tfov  fov  /3acrascoj  ^ojSov,  avcrtoty  xw>  Svdts  opotypovew  rtept,  <t* 
Soy^ua.  Sozomen,  IV.  16.  Ingemuit  totus  orbis,  et  Arianum'se  esse  miratus  est. 
Jerom.  adv.  Lucif.  4.  300.  Ilkffv  oXtyco*'  ayov.  Nazian  Or.  21. 

20* 


308  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

'  The  east  and  west,'  says  Sozomen,  *  seemed,  through  fear 
of  Constantius,  to  agree  in  faith.'  Arianism,  all  know,  was  the 
faith  produced  by  dread  of  the  emperor.  '  The  whole  world,' 
says  the  sainted  Jerome,  '  groaned  and  wondered  to  find  itself 
become  Arian.'  Gregory's  relation  is  still  more  circumstantial 
and  melancholy.  All,  says  this  celebrated  author,  '  except  a 
very  few  whom  obscurity  protected,  or  whose  resolution,  through 
divine  strength,  was  proof  against  temptation  and  danger,  tem- 
porised, yielded  to  the  emperor,  and  betrayed  the  faith.'  Some, 
ne  adds,  '  were  chiefs  of  the  impiety,  and  some  were  circum- 
vented by  threats,  gain,  ignorance,  or  flattery.  The  rightful 
guardians  of  the  faith,  actuated  by  hope  or  fear,  became  its 
persecutors.  Few  were  found,  who  did  not  sign  with  their 
hands  what  they  condemned  in  their  hearts  ;  while  many,  who 
had  been  accounted  invincible,  were  overcome.  The  faithful, 
without  distinction,  were  degraded  and  banished.'  The  sub- 
scription of  the  Byzantine  confession  was  an  indispensable 
qualification  for  obtaining  and  retaining  the  episcopal  dignity. 

Basil,  on  the  occasion,  uses  still  stronger  language  than  Gre- 
gory. He  represents  the  church  as  reduced  to  that  '  complete 
desperation,  which  he  calls  its  dissolution.'  According  to  Au- 
gustine, '  the  church,  as  it  were,  perished  from  the  earth. 
Nearly  all  the  world  fell  from  the  apostolic  faith.  Among  six 
hundred  and  fifty  bishops,  were  found  scarcely  seven,  who 
obeyed  God  rather  than  the  emperor,  and  who  would  neither 
condemn  Athanasius  nor  deny  the  Trinity.  The  Latins,  ac- 
cording to  Vincentius,  *  yielded  almost  all  to  force  or  fraud,  and 
the  poison  of  Arianism  contaminated,  not  merely  a  few,  but 
nearly  the  whole  world.' 

*  Nearly  all  the  churches  in  the  whole  world,'  says  Prosper, 
*  were,  in  the  name  of  peace  and  the  emperor,  polluted  with 
the  communion  of  the  Arians.'  The  councils  of  Ariminum  and 
Seleucia,  which  embraced  the  eastern  and  western  prelacy,  all, 


rtapa  sxxtyam.  Basil,  ep.  82.  ad  Athan.  3.  173. 
Tanquam  perierit  ecclesia  de  orbe  terrarum.  August.  Ep.  93.  L'eglise  6toit 
perie.  Apol.  1.  100.  Dilapso  a  fide  Apostolorum  omni  pene  mundo.  De  sex- 
centis  et  quinquaginta,  ut  fertur,  episcopis  vix  septem  invent!  sunt,  quibus  cariora 
essent  Dei  praecepta  quam  regis,  videlicet  ut  nee  in  Athanasii  damnationem  con- 
venirent,  nee  Trinitatis  confessionem  negarent.  Augustin,  contra  Jul.  10.  919. 
Arianorum  venenum  non  jam  portiunculam  quandam,  sed  pene  orbera  totum  con- 
taminaverat,  adeo  ut  prope  cunctis  Latini  sermonis  episcopis,  partim  vi,  partim 
fraude,  caligo  qusedam  mentibus  offunderetur.  Vincent.  Com.  644.  Omnes  pene 
ecclesiae,  toto  orbe  sub  nomine  pacis  et  regis,  Arianorum  consortio  polluuntur. 
Prosper,  Chron.  1.  423.  Ariana  vesania,  corrupto  orbe  toto,  hanc  etiam  insulam 
veneno  sui  infecit  erroris.  Non  solum  orbis  totius,  sed  et  insularum  ecclesiis 
aspersit.  Beda,  1.  8.  Fere  omnes  episcopi  in  fraudem  sunt  inducti,  ut  Occiden- 
tales  Ariminensi  illi  formula?,  ita  Orientales  subscriberent.  Baron,  in  Bisciola, 
230.  Omnes  pene  totius  orbis  antistites  metu  exilii  et  tormentorum  per  vim, 
induxerunt.  L  abbe  us,  2.  912. 


ECCLESIASTICAL    DISSENSIONS.  309 

through  treachery,  condemned  the  ancient  faith.  The  Arimi- 
nian  confession,  the  saint  denominated  'the  Ariminian  perfidy.' 
The  Arian  madness,  says  the  English  historian  Bede,  '  cor- 
rupted the  whole  continent,  opened  a  way  for  the  pestilence 
beyond  the  ocean,  and  shed  its  poison  on  the  British  and  other 
western  islands.' 

Baronius  calls  Arianism,  in  this  age,  '  the  fallacy,  into  which 
were  led  almost  all  the  eastern  and  western  clergy,  who  sub- 
scribed the  Ariminian  confession.'  Labbeus,  in  his  statement, 
concurs  with  Baronius.  He  represents  '  all  the  prelacy  of  the 
whole  world,  except  a  few,  as  yielding,  on  this  occasion,  to  the 
fear  of  exile  or  torment.' 

Arianism,  in  this  manner,  was  sanctioned  by  the  Papal 
church,  virtual,  representative,  and  dispersed,  or,  in  other 
words,  by  the  Roman  pontiff,  a  general  council,  and  the  col- 
lective clergy  of  Christendom.  Pope  Liberius  confirmed  an 
Arian  creed,  issued  by  the  general  council  of  Sirmium.  The 
synods  of  Ariminum  and  Seleucia,  comprehending  both  the 
Greeks  and  the  Latins,  copied  the  example  of  Sirmium.  The 
Constantinopolitan  confession,  which  was  the  same  as  the 
A-riminian  and  Sirmian,  which  were  both  Semi- Arian,  was  cir- 
culated through  the  east  and  west,  and  signed  by  the  clergy 
dispersed  through  the  Roman  empire.  The  Romish  church 
professes  to  receive  the  doctrines,  approved,  in  general,  by  the 
Episcopacy,  assembled  in  council  or  scattered  through  the 
world.  Arianism  was  established  in  both  these  ways,  and  the 
Romish  communion  therefore  became  Arian  in  its  head  and  in 
its  members,  or,  in  other  words,  in  the  pope  and  in  the  clergy. 

The  boasted  unity  of  Romanism  was  gloriously  displayed, 
by  the  diversified  councils  and  confessions  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. Popery,  on  that  as  on  every  other  occasion,  eclipsed 
Protestantism  in  the  manufacture  of  creeds.  Forty-five  coun- 
cils, says  Jortin,  were  held  in  the  fourth  century.1  Of  these, 
thirteen  were  against  Arianism,  fifteen  for  that  heresy,  and 
seventeen  for  Semi- Arianism.  The  roads  were  crowded  with 
bishops  thronging  to  synods,  and  the  travelling  expenses,  which 
were  defrayed  by  the  emperor,  exhausted  the  public  funds. 
These  exhibitions  became  the  sneer  of  the  heathen,  who  were 
amused  to  behold  men,  who,  from  infancy,  had  been  educated 
in  Christianity,  and  appointed  to  instruct  others  in  that  religion, 
hastening,  in  this  manner,  to  distant  places  and  conventions  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  their  belief.  t 

Socrates  reckons  nine  Arian  creeds,  which,  in  significan 
language,  he  calls  a  labyrinth.     The  Sirmian  confession,  which 

i  Jortin,  3.  106.     Ammian.  XXV.     Athan.  de  Syn. 


310  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

contained  one  of  the  nine,  was  signed  by  the  Roman  pontiff, 
and  the  majority  of  these  innovations  was  subscribed  by  the 
western  as  well  as  by  the  eastern  prelacy.  Fleury  makes  the 
Arian  confessions  sixteen,  and  Tillemont  eighteen.  Petavius 
reckons  the  public  creeds  at  eleven.  Fourteen  forms  of  faith, 
says  Juenin,  were  published  in  fourteen  years,  by  those  who 
rejected  the  Nicene  theology.1  Eight  of  these  are  mentioned 
by  Socrates,  and  the  rest  by  Athanasius,  Hilary,  and 
Epiphanius. 

Hilary  seems  to  have  been  the  severest  satirist,  in  this  age, 
on  the  variations  of  Popery.  Our  faith,  says  the  Roman  saint, 
'  varies  as  our  wills,  and  our  creeds  are  diversified  as  our  man- 
ners. Confessions  are  formed  and  interpreted  according  to 
fancy.  We  publish  annual  and  monthly  creeds  concerning  God. 
We  repent  and  defend  our  decisions,  and  pronounce  anathemas 
on  those  whom  we  have  defended.  Our  mutual  dissensions 
have  caused  our  mutual  ruin.'2  Hilary  was  surely  an  ungrate- 
ful son  of  canonization. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  who  equalled  Hilary  in  sanctity  and 
surpassed  him  in  moderation  and  genius,  treats  the  jarring  pre- 
lacy of  his  day  with  similar  freedom  and  severity.  The  Byzan- 
tine patriarch  lamented  the  misery  of  the  Christian  community, 
which,  torn  with  divisions,  contended  about  the  most  useless 
and  trivial  questions.  He  compared  the  contentions  of  the 
clergy  in  synods, l  to  the  noisy  and  discordant  cackling  of  geese 
and  cranes.'3  He  resigned  his  dignity  and  retired  from  the  city 
and  council  of  Constantinople,  through  n  n  aversion  to  the  alter- 
cations and  enmity  of  the  ecclesiastics  who,  by  their  discord, 
had  dishonoured  their  profession,  and  *  changed  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  into  an  image  of  chaos.' 

1  Socrat.  II.  41.  Spon.  359.  VIII.  Fleury,  XIV.  Bisciola,  320.  Tillem,  6. 
477.  Juenin,  3.72.  Petav.  VI.  4.  Epiph.  H.  73. 

8  Tot  nunc  fides  existere,  quot  voluntates ;  et  tot  nobis  doctrinas  esse,  quot 
mores.  Fides  scribuntur,  ut  volumus,  aut  ita  ut  volumes,  intelliguntur.  Incerto 
doctrinarum  vento  vagamur.  Annuas  atque  menstruas  de  Deo  Fides  decernimus 
Decretis  poenitemus,  defendimus,  defenses,  anathematizamus.  Mordentes  invicem, 
jam  absumpti  sumus  ab  invicem.  Hilary,  ad  Constan.  308. 

»  Greg.  Or.  1.     Oarm.  X.     Orat.  32. 


CHAPTER  X. 


EUT5TCHIANISM. 

KUTYCHIANISM    A   VERBAL    HERESY — ITS    PRIOR    EXISTENCE — BYZANTINE     COUNCIL — 

EPHESIAN    COUNCIL CHALCEDONIAN     COUNCIL — STATE    OF    MONOPHYSITISM    AFTER 

THE     COUNCIL     OF     CHALCEDON ZENo's     HENOTICON VARIETY     OF     OPINIONS     0» 

THAT    EDICT JACOBINISM DISTRACTED    STATE    OF    CHRISTENDOM. 

THE  Son  of  God,  in  the  theology  of  Christian  antiquity,  united, 
in  one  person,  both  deity  and  humanity.  The  Christians,  in 
the  days  of  simplicity  and  prior  to  the  introduction  of  refine- 
ment and  speculation,  accounted  the  Mediator  perfect  God  and 
perfect  man.  His  divinity  was  acknowledged  in  opposition  to 
Arianism ;  and  his  humanity,  consisting  in  a  real  body  and  a 
rational  soul,  in  contradiction  to  Gnosticism  and  Apollinarian- 
ism,  Godhead  and  manhood,  according  to  the  same  faith  and 
contrary  to  the  alleged  error  of  Nestorianism,  subsisted  in  the 
unity  of  his  person.  The  simplicity  of  the  faithful,  in  the  early 
ages,  was  satisfied  with  the  plain  untheorized  fact,  without 
vainly  attempting  to  investigate  the  manner  of  the  union  be- 
tween the  divinity  and  humanity. 

All  human  knowledge  may  be  resolved  into  a  few  facts,  evi- 
denced by  human  or  divine  testimony.  Reason,  in  a  few  in- 
stances, may  discover  t^eir  causes  and  consequences,  which 
again  are  known  to  man  only  as  facts.  The  manner,  inscru- 
table to  man,  is  removed  beyond  the  ken  of  the  human  mind, 
and  cognizable  only  by  the  boundlessness  of  divine  omniscience. 
An  acorn  is  evolved  into  an  oak.  But  the  mode  of  accomplish- 
ment is  unknown  to  man.  The  human  eye  cannot  trace  the 
operation  through  all  its  curious  and  wonderful  transformations 
in  the  mazy  labyrinth  of  nature,  and  in  the  dark  laboratory  and 
hidden  recesses  of  vegetation.  The  soul,  unacquainted  with 
the  manner  of  its  union  with  the  body  and  the  mutual  action  of 
matter  and  mind,  may  decline  philosophizing  on  the  incarnation 
of  the  Son  and  the  union  of  Godhead  and  manhood  in  Im- 
manuel.  The  ancients  therefore  showed  their  wisdom  in 
avoiding  speculation  on  a  truth,  the  certainty  of  which,  to  their 
great  joy,  they  had  learned  from  revelation. 


312  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

But  the  days  of  simplicity  passed  and  the  age  of  speculation 
arrived.  Men,  under  the  mask  of  devotion,  differed  and 
fought  about  what  they  did  not  understand.  The  Eutychian 
controversy,  which  exemplified  these  observations  and  which 
was  the  occasion  of  shocking  animosity,  began  in  the  year  448. 
Eutyches,  from  whom  this  party  took  its  name,  was  Abbot  or 
Superior  of  a  Byzantine  convent  of  300  monks,  in  which  he 
had  remained  for  seventy  years.  This  recluse  seems,  in  his 
cell,  to  have  spent  a  life  of  sanctity ;  and  he  boasted  of  having 
grown  hoary  in  combatting  error  and  defending  the  truth. 
His  understanding  and  literary  attainments  have  been  repre- 
sented as  below  mediocrity.  Leo,  the  Roman  hierarch,  calls 
Eutyches  an  old  senseless  dotard.  Petavius  reflects  on  his 
stupidity.1  But  these  aspersions  seem  to  have  been  the  off- 
spring of  prepossession  and  enmity.  The  supposed  Heresiarch, 
if  a  judgment  may  be  formed  from  the  records  of  history, 
showed  no  imbecility  of  mind  either  in  word  or  action.  He 
displayed,  on  the  contrary,  before  the  Byzantine  and  Chalce- 
donian  councils,  a  fund  of  sense  and  modesty,  which  might 
have  awakened  the  envy  of  his  persecutors.  He  resolved 
indeed  to  rest  his  faith  only  on  the  Bible,  as  a  firmer  founda- 
tion than  the  fathers.2  This  was  unpardonable,  and  evinced 
shocking  and  incurable  stupidity. 

This  celebrated  innovator,  however,  as  he  had  been  some- 
times accounted,  seemed  to  confound  the  natures  of  the  Son,  as 
Nestorius  had  appeared  to  divide  his  person.  He  was  accused 
of  denying  our  Lord's  humanity,  as  Arius  had  denied  his 
divinity,  and  of  renewing  the  errors  of  Gnosticism  and  Apol- 
linarianism.  He  believed,  said  some  of  his  opponents,  that  the 
humanity  was  absorbed  by  the  divinity  as  a  drop  is  over- 
whelmed in  the  ocean.  Godeau,  unsatisfied  with  accusing  the 
Heresiarch  with  other  errors,  has,  by  a  curious  process  of 
reasoning,  endeavoured  to  add  Nestorianism,  though  this,  in 
general,  was  accounted  the  opposite  heresy.  These  statements, 
however,  he  rejected  with  indignation.  He  used  language, 
indeed,  which,  from  its  inaccuracy,  seemed  to  imply  that  the 
Son  of  God,  after  his  incarnation,  possessed  but  one  nature  ; 
and  that  he  was  not  consubstantial  with  man  in  his  humanity, 
&s  he  was  consubstantial  with  God  in  his  deity.  Eutychian- 
ism,  as  refined  and  explained  by  Fullo  and  Xenias,  was  de- 
nominated Monophysitism.  These,  though  they  maintained  the 

1  Qui  sui  nominis  haeresim  condidit.     Victor,  321. 

Leo.  ad  Flav.  et  ad  Fast.  Labb.  4.  790,  1214.  Bin.  3.  10,  104.  Godeau,  3 
10,  405,  418.  Petav.  I.  14.  Alex.  10.  321. 

2  Solas  scripturas  sectari,  tanquam  firmiores  Patrum  expositionibus.     Alex.    10 
325. 


EUTYCHIANISM    A    VERBAL    HERESY.  313 

unity  of  the  Son's  nature,  admitted  that  this  unity  was  two-fold 
and  compounded,  and  rejected  the  idea  of  change  or  confusion 
of  his  divinity  and  humanity.1  This  denomination,  from  Jacob 
or  Zanzal,  its  restorer,  the  grandeur  of  whose  views  surpassed 
the  obscurity  of  his  station,  was  called  Jacobites. 

Eutychianism  was  only  a  nominal  or  verbal  heresy.  The 
controversy,  through  all  its  stages  and  in  all  its  fury,  was  a 
mere  logomacy,  a  miserable  quibbling  on  the  meaning  of  a  word. 
Its  author,  though  he  said  that  Jesus  before  the  hypostatical 
union,  possessed  two  natures,  and  after  it  only  one,  admitted, 
at  the  same  time,  that  he  was  perfect  God  and  perfect  man 
without  confusion  of  the  godhead  and  manhood  ;  and  anathe- 
matized the  partizans  of  Manicheanism  and  Apollinarianism. 
Dioscorus,  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  anathematized  all  who 
admitted  transmutation  or  commixion  of  divinity  and  humanity.2 

These  supposed  innovators,  therefore,  were  only  guilty  of 
confounding  the  words  nature  and  person  ;  and  offended  against 
the  propriety  of  language  rather  than  against  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  diction  of  Catholicism,  indeed,  on  this  topic,  far 
excels  the  phraseology  of  Monophysitism  in  precision  and  sim- 
plicity. But  the  disputation  turned  only  on  the  terms  of  ex- 
pression. This,  at  the  present  day,  is  the  general  opinion  of 
Protestant  critics,  such  as  Basnage,  La  Croze,  Mosheim,  and 
Buchanan.  Many  Romish  theologians  also,  all  indeed  who 
possess  candour  and  moderation  have  entertained  the  same  view. 
Gelasius,  Thomassin,  Tournefort,  Simon,  Petavius,  Assernar/, 
Bruys,  Alphonsus,  and  Vasquesius,  all  the  partizans  of  Roman- 
ism have  declared  in  favor  of  this  opinion.3  The  Jacobites  or 
Monophysites,  says  Gelasius  and  after  him  Thomassin,  are  far 
from  believing,  that  the  godhead,  in  the  Son,  is  blended  or  con- 
founded with  the  manhoocj.  Deity  and  humanity,  says  these 
authors,  according  to  the  Monophysite  system,  form  one  nature 
and  person  in  Jesus  as  soul  and  body  in  man,  while  each  retains 
its  proper  distinctions.  The  Armenians,  who  are  a  branch  of 
the  Jacobites,  disclaim,  says  Tournefort,  the  imputation  of  con- 
founding the  divine  and  human  nature,  which  are  distinct,  and 
ascribe  the  misunderstanding  between  themselves  and  the  other 
Christian  denominations  to  the  poverty  of  their  language.  Eu- 
tychianism, says  Simon,  uses  indeed  too  strong  language.  But 
the  distinction  arose  from  the  various  acceptations  of  the  terms 

1  Evagrius,  I.  9.     Theoph.  69.     Zonaras,  2.  34.     Crabb.  1.644.     Godeau,  3.  406. 

8  Confitebatur  perfectum  Deum  esse  et  perfection  hominem.  Bin.  3.  104.  Go- 
deau. 3.  432.  Dioscorns  dixit,  neque  confusionem  dicimus,  neque  divisionem, 
neque  conversionem.  Bin.  3.  93.  Labb.  4.  954. 

3  Gelasius  de  Duab.  Thomassin,  I.  4.  Tournefort,  2,  297.  Simon,  c.  9.  Pe- 
tav.  I.  14.  Asseman,  2,  297.  Bruy.  1.  230.  Alex.  11.  297,  300.  Thorn  2.  21 
Du  Pin,  694. 


314  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

nature  and  person,  and  might  easily  be  reconciled  with  Catho- 
licism. The  Monophysite  expression,  according  to  Petavius, 
may  be  understood  in  an  orthodox  sense.  Alphonsus,  Vasque- 
sius,  and  Asseman,  have  delivered  similar  statements.  Euty- 
ches,  says  Bruys,  differed  from  the  orthodox  only  in  his  man- 
ner of  expression,  and  was  condemned  only  because  he  was 
misunderstood.  Gregory,  the  Monophysite  metropolitan,  who 
was  also  a  theologian,  philosopher,  poet,  physician,  and  histo- 
rian, accounted  the  Jacobite  a  mere  verbal  controversy. 
Gregory's  view  of  this  supposed  heresy  appears  from  the 
Byzantine  conference  between  the  Severians  and  Hypatius 
under  Justinian  ;  and  again,  in  a  still  clearer  light,  from  the 
confession  of  faith,  which  the  Armenian  patriarch  sent  to  the 
emperor  Manuel. 

Monophysitism,  however,  whether  real  or  verbal,  was  no 
novelty.  Similar  expressions,  as  Theorian,  Eutyches,  Diosco- 
rus,  Eustathius,  Damascen,  the  Orientals,  and  Severians  showed, 
had  been  used  by  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Gregory,  Dionysius,  and 
Nazianzen,  who  are  Roman  saints ;  and  by  Felix  and  Julius, 
who  were  Roman  pontiffs.1  Athanasius  and  Cyril,  said  Theo- 
rian, the  advocate  of  Catholicism  in  1169,  used  the  expression 
*  one  incarnated  nature  of  the  Word.'  Eutyches,  in  the  council 
of  Chalcedon,  said,  *  I  have  read  the  works  of  Cyril,  Athana- 
sius, and  other  fathers,  who  ascribed  two  natures  to  the  Son 
before  the  union,  but  after  it  only  one.'  Writing  to  Leo,  he 
represented  Julius  saying,  that  divinity  and  humanity  in  Im- 
manuel  after  the  incarnation,  formed,  like  soul  and  body  in  man, 
but  one  nature.  The  comparison  of  soul  and  body,  on  this 
question,  seems  to  have  been  a  favorite  among  the  ancients. 
Nazianzen  used  it  in  nearly  the  same  diction  as  Julius.  Dios- 
corus,  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  said,  '  I  have  the  repeated 
attestations  of  Athanasius,  Gregory,  and  Cyril  lor  only  one  na- 
ture in  Jesus  after  the  union,  and  these  kept,  not  in  a  negligent 
or  careless  manner,  but  in  books.  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Bery- 
tus,  on  this  topic,  displayed  signal  confidence  and  resolution. 

1  Unam  naturam  sermonis  incamatam.     Cossart,  2.  580,  581.     Du  Pin,  1.  659. 

Eutyches  dixit,  ego  legi  scripta  beati  Cyrilli,  et  sanctorum  patrum,  et  sancti 
Atlianasii,  quoniam  ex  duabus  quidem  naturis  dixerunt  ante  adunationern,  post 
adunationem,  non  jam  duas  naturis,  sed  unam  naturam  dixerunt.  Bin.  3.  124 
Labb.  6.  436.  Alex.  10.  371.  Liberatus,  c.  11. 

Naturae  quidem  duse,  Dens  et  homo,  quemadmodum  et  anima  et  corpus,  Nazian. 
ad  Cledon.  Bin.  3.  182.  Labb.  4.  954. 

Verisimile  eat,  non  esse  Cyrilli.     Bell.  III.  4.     Damas.  III.  6. 

Beato  Cyrillo  et  beato  Athanasio  Alexandrinse  civitatis  episcopis,  Felice  etiwn  et 
Julio  Roman ae  ecclesise,  Gregorio  quin  etiam  et  Dionysio,  unam  naturam  Dei  Verbi 
decernentibus  post  unitionem,  hos  omnes  transgressi  illi,  post  unitionem  prses^mp- 
serunt  duas  naturas  praedicare.  Labb.  5.912.  Bin.  3.  93,  94,  97.  Du  Pin,  1  694 


EUTYCHIANISM    A    VERBAL    HERESY.  315 

Cyril,  said  the  bold  Monophysite,  declared  in  favor  of  '  one  in- 
carnated nature,'  and  confirmed  his  declaration  by  the  testi- 
mony of  Athanasius.  The  Judges  were  going  to  speak,  when 
Eustathius  interrupted  them,  and,  passing  into  the  middle  of 
the  assembly,  said,  '  if  I  am  mistaken,  behold  Cyril's  book 
Anathematize  Cyril,  and  I  am  anathematized.'  One  incarnated 
nature,  indeed,  says  Du  Pin,  was  a  favorite  and  frequent 
phrase  with  Cyril. 

Damascen  also,  quoted  by  Bellarmine,  ascribed  language  of 
the  same  kind  to  Athanasius,  Cyril,  and  Nazianzen.  This 
author,  though  an  adherent  of  Romanism,  admitted  the  use  of 
Monophysite  expressions  in  the  above-named  Grecian  saints. 
Bellarmine,  indeed,  with  respect  to  Cyril,  hints  a  suspicion  of 
forgery.  The  Cardinal,  however,  does  not  aver  a  certainty  of 
falsification  even  in  Cyril's  works.  He  insinuates  only  a  like- 
lihood of  interpolation  in  this  author;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
acknowledges  the  genuineness  of  the  language  attributed  to 
Athanasius  and  Nazianzen. 

The  Orientals,  Asians,  Pontians,  and  Thracians  at  Chalcedon, 
represented  Eutyches  and  Dioscorus  as  agreeing  with  Athana- 
sius and  Cyril  in  the  belief  of  '  one  incarnated  nature  of  the 
Word.'  The  Severians,  in  the  Byzantine  conference  in  533 
under  Justinian,  convicted  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Felix,  Julius, 
Gregory,  and  Dionysius  of  Monophysitism  from  their  own 
works  in  the  face  of  Hypatius,  who,  on  that  occasion,  was  the 
advocate  of  Catholicism.  These,  according  to  their  own 
writings,  declared  in  favor  of  one  nature  in  the  Son  after  the 
union. 

The  antiquity  or  orthodoxy  of  Eutychianism,  however,  real 
or  pretended,  failed  to  protect  the  system  from  condemnation, 
or  its  supposed  author  tfrom  curses  and  excommunication. 
Eusebius  of  Dorylseum,  who  had  been  admitted  into  intimacy 
and  friendship  with  the  alleged  Heresiarch,  and  in  consequence 
had  become  acquainted  with  his  opinions  or  expressions,  ex- 
postulated and  endeavoured  to  show  him,  says  Godeau,  his 
error  and  impiety.  But  these  expostulations  were  useless  and 
unavailing.  He  then  arraigned  him  for  heresy  in  a  council  at 
Constantinople,  in  which  Flavian,  patriarch  of  that  city,  presided. 
The  Eutychian  error,  nominal  as  it  was,  excited  the  holy  synod's 
zeal  against  heresy.  The  pious  bishops,  on  its  author's  decla- 
ration of  his  opinion,  rose  in  tumultuous  uproar  and  cursed  in 
full  chorus.  Their  devotion  evaporated  in  noisy  and  repeated 
anathemas  against  the  shocking  blasphemy  and  its  impious  au- 
thor. The  holy  fathers,  rising  to  assist  their  cursing  and  bellow- 
ing powers,  twice,  says  Liberatus,  imprecated  anathemas  on 


516  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY' 

the  Heresiarch.1  The  sacred  synod  rose  to  their  feet,  to 
enable  themselves,  in  an  erect  posture,  to  do  justice  to  their 
devotion  and  to  their  lungs  in  uttering  their  pious  ejaculations. 
Eutyches  was  declared  guilty  of  heresy  and  blasphemy  ;  and 
the  sacred  synod,  in  the  excess  of  Christian  charity  and  com 
passion,  sighed  and  wept  for  his  total  apostacy.  The  holy 
men,  in  one  breath,  cursed,  and  sighed,  and  wept,  and  excom- 
municated. Their  tune,  it  seems,  exhibited  sufficient  variety. 
Sighs  of  pity  mingled  with  yells  of  execration.  The  melody, 
which  must  have  resembled  the  harmony  of  the  spheres,  could 
not  fail  to  gratify  all  who  had  an  ear  for  music.  The  holy 
council,  after  a  reasonable  expenditure  of  sighs,  tears,  lamen- 
tations, and  anathemas,  deprived  the  impious  heresiarch  of  the 
sacerdotal  dignity,  ecclesiastical  communion,  and  the  govern- 
ment of  his  monastery.  He  was  anathematized  for  holding  the 
faith  of  the  pontifical  Felix  and  Julius,  as  well  as  of  the  sainted 
Cyril,  Gregory,  Athanasius,  and  Nazianzen. 

The  Ephesian  council,  in  449,  completely  reversed  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  decision.  The  second  council  of  Ephesus  was 
convened  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  who  favoured  Monophy- 
sitism  ;  and,  according  to  the  summons,  consisted  often  Metro- 
politans, and  ten  suffragans  from  the  six  oriental  dioceses  of 
Egypt,  Thracia,  Pontus,  Antioch,  Asia,  and  Illyricum.  A  few 
others  were  admitted  by  special  favour.  Barsumas  the  Syrian 
was  invited  to  represent  the  monks.  Julian  and  Hilary  sat  as 
vicars  of  Leo  the  Roman  hierarch.  The  whole  assembly,  in 
consequence,  numbered  about  150.  Dioscorus,  the  Alexandrian 
patriarch,  presided.  Elpidius  and  Eulogius,  as  protectors  and 
guardians  of  the  convention,  were  commissioned  by  Theodosius 
to  prevent  uproar  and  confusion,  and  to  induce  the  assembly 
to  act  with  proper  deliberation.2 

This  synod,  from  its  total  disregard  of  all  justice  and  equity, 
has  been  called  the  Ephesian  latrocinium  or  gang  of  felons. 
The  application,  indeed,  has  not  been  misplaced.  The  Ephe- 
sian cabal  affords  as  distinguished  a  display  of  ruffianism  as 
ever  disgraced  humanity.  Villany,  however,  was  not  peculiar 
to  this  ecclesiastical  convention.  Many  others  possessed  equal 
merit  of  the  same  kind,  and  are  equally  entitled  to  the  same 
honourable  distinction. 

The  battle  and  bloodshed,  which  afterwards  ensued,  did  not 
commence  during  the  preceding  transactions  of  the  assembly. 
The  campaign  did  not  open  while  faith  was  the  topic  of  discus- 

1  Exurgens  sancta  synodus  clamavit,  dicens,  anathema  ipsi.     Liberatus,   c.    11 
Theoph.  69.     Zonaras,  XIII.  23.     Alex.  10.  322.     Godea.  3.  407.     Bin.  3.  125. 
1  Evag.  1.  9,  10.    Bin.  3.  5.   Alex.  10.  253.  346.    Godea.  3.  415.    Moreri,  3.  209 


BYZANTINE  DECREE  REVERSED  BY  THE  EPHESIAN  COUNCIL.  317 

sion.  The  utmost  unanimity  prevailed  on  the  subject  of  Mono- 
physitism  ;  and  Dioscorus,  on  this  question,  found  all  intimida- 
tion and  compulsion  unnecessary.  The  sacred  synod  joined, 
with  one  consent  and  in  hoi}'  fervour,  in  cursing  the  enemies 
of  Eutychianism  and  the  heresy  of  two  natures  :  and  piously 
praying  that  Eusebius,  who  had  opposed  their  system,  might 
be  hewn  asunder,  burnt  alive,  and,  as  he  would  divide,  be 
divided.  Dioscorus  desired  those  who  could  not  roar,  to  hold 
up  their  hands  in  anathematizing  the  heresy  of  Flavian*  All, 
as  one  man,  yelled  anathemas,  and  in  loud  execration  and  fury, 
vented  their  imprecations,  that  those  who  should  divide  the  Son 
of  God  might  be  torn  and  massacred.1  Dioscorus,  even  in  the 
council  of  Chalcedon,  proclaimed,  without  hesitation  or  dismay, 
the  unanimity  of  the  Ephesian  assembly.  The  orientals,  indeed, 
at  Chalcedon,  disclaimed,  through  fear,  these  exclamations 
which  the  Egyptians,  with  more  consistency  and  resolution, 
even  then  avowed.  These  things,  exclaimed  the  Egyptians, 
'  we  then  said  and  now  say.'  Eutyches,  in  the  Ephesian  synod, 
was  declared  orthodox,  reinstated  in  the  sacerdotal  dignity,  and 
restored  to  ecclesiastical  communion  ;  while  his  firmness  and 
intrepidity,  in  support  of  the  faith,  were  extolled  in  the  highest 
strains  of  fulsome  flattery.  All  this  was  transacted  with  accla- 
mation and  unanimity,  and  without  force  or  intimidation.  No 
objections  were  made  even  by  Flavian,  Julian,  or  Hilary.  The 
Byzantine  patriarch  and  the  Roman  legates  viewed,  with  tacit 
or  avowed  consent,  the  establishment  of  Eutychianism  and  its 
author's  restoration  to  the  priesthood  and  ecclesiastical  com- 
munion. 

But  the  scene  changed,  when  Dioscorus  attempted  to  depose 
Flavian.  Discord  then  succeeded  to  harmony,  and  compulsion 
to  freedom.  Many  of  the  bishops,  and  especially  those  of 
Thracia,  Pontus,  and  Asia,  could  not,  wthout  regret,  witness 
the  degradation  of  the  Byzantine  patriarch  ;  and  ventured,  with 
the  utmost  submission,  to  supplicate  Dioscorus  in  favour  of 
Flavian.  Julian  and  Hilary,  say  Victor  and  Theodoret,  op- 
posed the  sentence  of  deposition  with  unshaken  resolution.  But 
Dioscorus,  in  reply  to  these  supplications  and  expostulations, 
appealed  to  Elipidius  and  Eulogius.  The  doors,  by  their  com- 
mand, were  opened,  and  the  Proconsul  of  Asia  entered,  sur- 
rounded with  a  detachment  of  300  soldiery  armed  with  clubs 
and  swords,  followed  by  a  crowd  of  monks,  inaccessible  to 

1  Sic  sapit  omnis  synodus.  Hsec  universalis  synodus  sic  sapit.  Sancta  synodus 
dixit,  si  quis  dicit  duo,  sit  anathema.  Bin.  3.  121.  Labb.  4.  931,  1012,  1018. 

In  duo  separate  eos  qui  dicunt  duas  naturas.  Qui  dicunt  duas,  dividhe,  inter- 
ficite,  ejicite.  Alex.  11.  294. 

Dioscorus  dixit,  consentimus  his  et  nos  omnes?  Sancta  synodus  dixit  consenti- 
mus.  Bin.  3.  123.  Godeau,  3.  435 


318  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

reason  or  mercy,  and  accoutred  with  bludgeons,  the  usual  wea- 
pons of  such  militia.  Hostilities  soon  commenced.  Terror 
and  confusion  reigned.  The  trembling  bishops,  unambitious 
of  martyrdom,  hid  behind  the  altar,  crept  under  the  benches, 
and,  concealed  in  corners,  seemed  to  envy  the  mouse  the  shel- 
ter of  the  wall.  A  few  who  refused  to  sign  a  blank  paper, 
afterward  filled  with  Flavian's  condemnation,  were  inhumanly 
beaten.1  These  arguments,  though  perhaps  not  satisfactory, 
were  tangible  and  convincing  to  the  holy  fathers,  who,  Julian 
and  Hilary  excepted,  all  subscribed. 

Flavian,  however,  as  might  be  expected,  continued  to  object 
to  his  own  condemnation,  and,  in  consequence,  was  reviled 
and  trampled.  Dioscorus  distinguished  himself,  according  to 
Zonaras,  Theophanes,  Evagrius,  and  Binius,  in  cruelty  to  the 
aged  patriarch.  The  president,  on  the  occasion,  shewed  great 
science,  and  played  his  hands  and  feet  with  a  precision,  which, 
even  in  the  days  of  modern  improvement,  would  have  delighted 
any  amateur  of  the  fancy.  Dioscorus,  says  Zonaras,  leaped, 
like  a  wild  ass,  on  Flavian,  and  kicked  the  holy  man's  breast 
with  his  heels  and  struck  his  jaws  with  his  fist.2  Theophanes 
delivers  a  similar  account,  and  describes  the  holy  patriarch's 
dexterity  in  the  belligerent  application  of  his  hands  and  feet. 
Flavian,  says  Evagrius,  \v;is  bra  ten  and  assassinated,  in  a 
wretched  manner,  by  Dioscorus.  This,  no  doubt,  was  close 
reasoning,  and  afforded  a  specimen  of  warm  and  masterly  dis- 
cussion. The  disputants  certainly  used  hard  arguments, 
though  perhaps  not  strictly  scriptural.  Dioscorus,  says  Binius, 
from  a  bishop  became  a  hangman,  and  thumped  with  both  feet 
and  fists.8  Barsumas,  who  commanded  the  Syrian  monks,  was 
also  very  active  in  effecting  the  assassination  of  Flavian.  He 
urged  his  men  or  rather  monsters  to  murder.  Kill,  said  the 
barbarian  to  his  myrmidons,  kill  Flavian.  Blows  and  kicks, 
knuckles  and  fists  were,  in  this  manner,  applied  with  address 
and  effect  to  the  Byzantine  patriarch  by  these  holy  men.  His 
death,  three  days  after,  was  the  natural  consequence.  The 
Roman  vicars,  however,  though  they  had  betrayed  the  faith, 
made  a  noble  stand  for  Flavian.  These,  in  the  face  of  danger, 
protested  against  the  injustice  of  his  sentence  ;  and  mindful, 
says  Godeau,  of  the  pontiff  whom  they  represented,  defied  the 
fury  of  Dioscorus,  contemned  the  insolence  of  Barsumas,  and 
braved  the  terrors  of  death. 

1  Liberal,  c.  12.     Bin.  3.  60.     Labb.  6.  438.     Godea.  3.  435 

2  Ota  fi$  ayptoj  oro?  ava#o/3cov  6  Atoorxopoj,  faxf  *«  ctt'fpvw  aveOofe  tov  cvtffjSotij 
fxsivou  av5/3o$,  xcu  rtvt  cmfov  xafa  xofjfas  fvrtTHw.       Zonar.  2.  34.     Theoph.  69 
Evag.  II.  2. 

3  Dioscorus  factus  ex  episcopo  carnifex,  pugnis  calcibusque  contend**      Bin.  9 
6,  317.     Labb.  4.  1413.     Alex.  10.  355.     Godea.  3.  434,  435. 


VALIDITY    OF    THE     EPHESIAN    COUNCIL.  319 

The  Ephesian  council,  though  rejected  by  Baronius  and  Bel- 
larmine,  was  general,  lawful,  and,  on  the  doctrinal  question,  free 
and  unanimous.  Its  meeting  was  called  and  its  decisions  con- 
firmed, as  usual,  by  the  emperor.  The  summons  was  more 
general  and  the  attendance  more  numerous  than  those  of  many 
other  general  councils,  such  as  the  fourth  of  Constantinople  and 
the  fifth  of  the  Lateran.  The  Ephesian  fathers,  indeed,  except 
Julian  and  Hilary,  were  easterns.  But  the  same  was  the  case 
with  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and  fifth  general  councils,  ex- 
cept a  few  Egyptians  at  Ephesus,  and  two  Africans  and  one 
Persian  at  Chalcedon.  The  second,  third,  and  fifth  wanted  the 
Pope's  legates,  who  sat  at  the  second  of  Ephesus.  Its  decisions 
were  sanctioned  by  Theodosius,  who,  by  an  edict,  subjected  all 
of  the  contrary  system  to  banishment  and  their  books  to  the 
flames.  The  Roman  pontiff  indeed  did  not  confirm  its  acts. 
But  this  can  be  no  reason  for  its  rejection  by  those,  who,  like 
the  French  clergy  and  the  synod  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil, 
reckon  a  council  above  a  Pope.  Damasus,  besides,  rejected 
the  third  canon  of  Constantinople,  and  Leo,  the  twenty-eighth 
of  Chalcedon  ;  while  Vigilius  confirmed  the  fifth  general  council 
only  by  compulsion.  The  condemnation  of  Flavian,  indeed, 
which  was  a  question  of  discipline,  was  exacted  by  the  tyranny 
of  Dioscorus.  But  the  decision  in  favor  of  Eutychianism, 
which  was  a  point  of  faith,  passed  with  freedom,  unanimity, 
and  deafening  acclamation.  Less  liberty,  if  possible,  was 
allowed  in  the  preceding  Ephesian  convention,  which,  notwith- 
standing, remains,  till  this  day,  a  general,  apostolic,  holy  infal- 
lible council.  Mirandula,  an  advocate  of  Romanism,  admits 
the  legality  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  heresy  of  the  second 
Ephesian  congress.1 

The  Greek  and  Latin  xemperors,  with  the  Alexandrian  patri- 
arch and  Roman  pontiff,  were,  after  the  council  of  Ephesus, 
placed  in  open  hostility.  Theodosius  and  Dioscorus,  in  the 
east,  supported  Monophysitism  with  imperial  and  patriarchal 
authority.  Valentinian  and  Leo,  in  the  west,  patronised  the 
theology,  which,  on  account  of  its  final  success,  and  establish- 
ment, had  been  denominated  Catholicism.  The  Roman  and 
Alexandrian  patriarchs,  in  genius,  piety,  and  determination, 
were  well  matched.  Both  possessed  splendid  ability,  pretended 
religion,  and  fearless  resolution.  Leo,  at  one  time,  had  charac- 
terised Dioscorus  as  a  man  adorned  with  true  faith  and  holiness  ; 
while  Theodoret  represented  the  patriarch  as  a  person,  who, 
fixing  his  affections  on  heaven,  despised  all  worldly  grandeur.2 

i  Mirandul.  Th.  4.     Godeau,  3.  436. 


8  OvSe  T'COV  Opovtav  tfo  v>fyo$  ,3?i£  7tft$,  xat  tfotj  0«otj  vo^itotj  axofaovOeis,  &v 
po|jvft  rtdi>  orpavwv  -fyjv  Bacfctatai/.     Theod.  9.  935.     Ep.  60.     Leo  ad  Dioscor.  ' 


320  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Leo,  however,  whatever  may  have  been  the  case  with  Theodoret, 
began  to  alter  his  mind,  and  sung  to  another  tune,  as  soon  as 
his  vicars,  having  escaped  from  threatened  destruction,  an- 
nounced the  decision  of  Ephesus.  Hilary  and  Julian  arrived 
to  tell  the  melancholy  tale  of  the  tyranny  of  Dioscorus  and  the 
martyrdom  of  Flavian.  Leo,  on  hearing  the  tragic  intelligence 
immediately  summoned  a  Roman  synod,  and,  supported  by  a 
faithful  troop  of  suffragans,  disannulled  the  Ephesian  enact- 
ments, and  launched  a  red-hot  anathema,  which  winged  its  fiery 
course  across  the  Mediterranean,  and  rebounded  from  the  head 
of  Dioscorus  at  Alexandria.  But  Dioscorus  was  no  trembler. 
He  was  not  a  man  to  be  intimidated  by  the  fulminations  of 
Leo's  spiritual  artillery.  He  soon  returned  the  compliment. 
He  convened  his  suffragans  in  an  Alexandrian  council,  and 
hurled  the  thunders  of  excommunication,  with  interest  and 
without  fear,  a.gainst  his  infallibility.1  But  Leo  was  not  to  be 
frightened  by  the  empty  flash  of  an  anathema.  He  had,  with- 
out shrinking,  encountered  the  hostility  of  Genseric  and  Attila, 
and  was  not  to  be  dismayed  by  the  spiritual  artillery  of  Dios- 
corus. These  ecclesiastical  engines  indeed  possess  one  advan- 
tage. Their  explosions,  though  they  may  sometimes  stun,  never 
slay.  These  campaigns  may  be  followed  with  the  loss  of  char- 
acter, but  are  not  attended  with  the  loss  of  life. 

Leo,  feeling  the  inefficiency  of  excommunication,  petitioned 
Theodosius,  heretic  as  he  was,  to  assemble  a  general  council. 
The  western  emperor  Valentinian,  and  the  two  empresses  Pla- 
cidia  and  Eudoxia  with  sighs  and  tears,  joined  in  the  request. 
But  Theodosius  was  a  Eutychian,  and  therefore  satisfied  with 
the  faith  of  Ephesus.  The  heretical  and  hardened  emperor,  in 
consequence,  rejected  the  application,  regardless  of  the  suppli- 
cations of  Valentinian  and  Leo,  as  well  as  the  sighs  which  rose 
from  the  orthodox  hearts,  and  the  tears  which  fell  from  the  f»:r 
eyes  of  Placidia  and  Eudoxia.  He  had  even  the  obduracy,  in 
a  letter  to  Placidia,  to  call  the  blessed  Flavian  *  the  prince  of 
contention.'  He  represented  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  in  a  let- 
ter to  Valentinian,  as  guilty  of  innovation,  and  suffering  due 
punishment ;  and  the  church,  in  consequence  of  his  removal,  as 
enjoying  peace  and  flourishing  in  truth  and  tranquillity.  Theo- 
dosius, prior  to  the  Ephesian  synod,  had  begged  Flavian  to  be 
satisfied  with  the  Nicene  faith,  without  perplexing  his  mind 
with  hair-breadth  distinctions,  which  no  person  could  understand 
or  explain.  This  was  a  good  advice ;  and  Flavian,  had  he 

1  Dioscorus,  ponens  in  coelum  os  suum,  excommunicationemin  sanctum  Leonem 
Papam  dictavit.  Labb.  9.  1328.  Bin.  3.  6.  Liberal,  c.  12.  Bisciola,  401. 
Theod.  Ep.  125.  Godea.  3.  440,  442. 


THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON    CONVENED.  32l 

enjoyed  the  liberty  of  thinking  for  himself,  would  have  followed 
it.1"  But  the  mild  patriarch  was  influenced  by  more  ardent 
spirits,  who  were  unacquainted  with  moderation  and  drove 
every  thing  to  extremity. 

But  Theodosius,  in  the  mean  time,  died,  and  Marcian,  who 
was  attached  to  Leo  and  his  system,  succeeded.  This  emperor, 
urged  by  the  pontiff,  convened  the  general  council  of  Chalcedon. 
This  grand  assembly  contained,  say  historians,  six  hundred  and 
thirty  bishops.  All  these,  however,  six  only  excepted,  were 
Greeks.  Pascasinus,  Lucentius,  and  Boniface  represented  Leo 
the  Roman  hierarch.  Twenty  laymen  of  consular  or  senatorial 
dignity,  as  royal  commissioners,  represented  the  emperor.  The 
gospels,  which  the  good  bishops  neither  understood  nor  regarded, 
were,  with  affected  ostentation,  placed  on  a  lofty  throne  in  the 
centre.2 

The  Chalcedonian  resembled  the  Ephesian  council  in  confu- 
sion, noise,  tumult,  and  a  total  want  of  all  liberty.  Its  acts, 
like  its  predecessor's,  were  scenes  of  uproar  and  vociferation, 
which  degraced  the  Christian  religion  and  degraded  the  episco- 
pal dignity.  A  bear-garden,  a  cock-pit,  or  a  noisy  bedlam 
would  afford  a  modern  some  faint  idea  of  the  general,  infallible, 
apostolic,  holy,  Roman,  council  of  Chalcedon.  Nothing  was 
heard,  on  any  particular  occasion  of  excitement,  but  vocifera- 
tion, anathemas,  execration,  cursing,  and  imprecation,  bellowed 
by  the  several  factions  or  by  the  whole  synod  in  mutual  or 
contending  fury.  A  specimen  of  these  denunciations  and 
insults  was  displayed  in  the  first  session,  when  Theodoret,  who 
was  accounted  friendly  to  Nestorianism,  and  Dioscorus,  who 
had  caused  the  assassination  of  Flavian,  entered  the  assembly. 
The  Egyptians,  Illyrians,  and  Palestinians  shouted  till  the  roof 
reechoed, '  put  out  Theodoret.  Put  out  the  master  of  Nestorius. 
Out  with  the  enemy  of  God  and  the  blasphemer  of  His  Son. 
Put  out  the  Jew.  Long  life  to  the  Emperor  and  Empress.' 
The  Orientals,  Asians,  Pontians,  and  Thracians  replied  with 
equal  uproar,  *  put  out  Dioscorus.  Put  out  the  assassin.  Put 
out  the  Manichean.  Out  with  the  enemy  of  heaven  and  the 
adversary  of  the  faith.'3 

The  Imperial  commissioners,  on  these  occasions,  had  to  inter- 
fere for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the  peace.  These,  in  strong 
terms,  represented  such  acclamations  as  unbecoming  the  episco- 
pal dignity  and  useless  to  each  party.  Du  Pin  admits,  that  the 
authority  of  the  commissioners  was  necessary  to  prevent  the 

1  Bin.  3.  6.  29.     Liberatus,  c.  12.     Labb.  6.  439. 
«  Bvag.  II.  4.     Crabb.  1.  740.     Bin.  3.  49.     Labb.  4.  1358. 
»  Evag.  II.  18.     Crabb.  I.  743      Bin.  3.  55.     Labb.  4.  886.     Godea.  3.  461 

21 


322  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

infallible  council  from  degenerating  into  a  confused  and  noisy 
mob.  The  judges,  says  Alexander,  repressed  the  tumultuary 
clamours  by  their  prudence  and  authority.1  The  pontifical 
and  especially  the  imperial  authority  destroyed  all  freedom  of 
suffrage.  Marcian  influenced  the  decisions  of  Chalcedon,  with 
more  decency  indeed,  but  with  no  less  certainty  than  Dioscorus 
did  those  of  Ephesus. 

The  Chalcedonian  council,  as  a  proof  of  its  unity,  passed 
three  distinct  creeds  on  the  subject  of  Monophysitism  ;  and  all 
by  acclamation.  Leo's  letter,  which  he  had  addressed  to  Fla- 
vian, was  passed  in  the  second  session.  The  Roman  hierarch 
had  transmitted  an  epistle,  on  the  pending  question,  to  the 
Byzantine  patriarch.  This  epistolary  communication,  which 
has  been  styled  the  column  of  orthodoxy,  had  discussed  this 
topic,  it  has  been  said  with  judgment  and  precision.  This  being 
recited  in  the  synod,  the  assembled  fathers  approved  in  loud 
acclamations.  The  Illyrians  and  Palestinians  indeed  paused, 
and  seemed  for  a  time  to  doubt.  Their  scrupulosity,  however, 
was  soon  removed,  and  all  began  to  vociferate,  "  This  is  the 
faith  of  the  fathers.  This  is  the  faith  of  the  apostles.  This  is 
the  faith  of  the  orthodox.  This  we  all  believe.  Anathema  to 
the  person  who  disbelieves.  Peter  speaks  by  Leo.  The 
apostles  thus  taught.  Cyril  thus  taught.  Cyril  for  ever.  This 
is  the  true  faith.  Leo  teaches  piety  and  truth,  and  those  who 
gainsay  are  Eutychians."2  The  infallible  fathers,  however,  if 
we  may  judge  from  their  conduct  in  the  fifth  session,  in  which 
they  thundered  acclamations  in  favor  of  a  Monophysan  confes- 
sion, misunderstood  his  Roman  infallibility. 

A  second  confession  or  definition  was  passed  with  reiterated 
acclamations  in  the  fifth  session.  This  definition,  which  had 
been  composed  with  careful  deliberation  by  Anatolius,  and 
declared  that  the  Son  of  God  was  composed  of  two  natures, 
(which  implied  that  he  possessed  the  divinity  and  humanity, 
prior,  though  not  posterior,  to  the  union  or  incarnation,)  was 
unqualified  Monophysitism,  expressed  perhaps  with  some  lati- 
tude or  ambiguity.  The  definition  implied  that  godhead  and 
manhood  were,  to  speak  in  chemical  language,  the  two  distinct 
elements  of  which,  at  the  instant  of  conjunction,  a  new  substance 
or  nature  was  formed.  Two  elements,  in  the  laboratory  of  the 
chemist,  will  form  a  composition  by  the  amalgamation  of  their 
constituent  principles.  The  Eutychians  and  Chalcedonians 
seem  to  have  entertained  an  idea,  that  the  humanity  and  divi- 

1  Tumaltuarios  clamores  auctoritate  et  prudentia  sua  judices  compescuerunt. 
Alex.  10.  368. 

'•  Kpistolam  Leonis  tanquam  columnam  orthodoxae  fidei  susceperunt. 
4.  69.     Evag.  II.  4.     Bin  3.  221.     Crabb.  1.  880.     Godeau,  3.  479. 


MONOPHYSITISM    OF    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON.       323 

nity  of  the  Son,  were,  in  some  way  of  this  kind,  incorporated 
at  the  moment  of  his  incarnation.  This  notion  was  expressed, 
in  plain  language,  in  the  Chalcedonian  definition.  The  idea  is 
rank  Monophysitism.  Eutyches  or  Dioscorus  would  have  sub- 
scribed the  formulary.1 

AH  the  Chalcedonians,  nevertheless,  the  three  Romans  and  a 
few  orientals  excepted,  were  unanimous  in  its  favour,  and  sup- 
ported it  with  vociferation.2  *  The  definition  pleases  all.  This 
is  the  faith  of  the  fathers.  He  who  thinks  otherwise  is  a  here- 
tic. Anathema  to  him  who  forms  a  different  opinion.  Put  out 
the  Nestorians.  The  definition  pleases  all.  Holy  Mary  is  the 
mother  of  God.'  The  emperor,  however,  by  his  commissioners, 
and  the  pontiff,  by  his  vicars,  opposed  the  council.  These 
insisted,  that  the  Son  should  be  said  to  exist  '  IN  two  natures.' 
Pascasinus,  Lucentius,  and  Boniface,  who  represented  his  holi- 
ness, determined  if  this  were  opposed,  to  return  to  the  Roman 
city  and  there  convene  a  Roman  council  for  the  establishment 
of  the  true  faith  ;  and  in  this  determination,  they  were  seconded, 
with  the  utmost  pertinacity,  by  the  Imperial  commissioners. 
The  council,  notwithstanding,  shewed  a  firm  resolution  against 
any  supplement  to  a  form  of  belief,  which,  in  their  mind,  was 
perfect.  '  The  definition,'  the  bishops  vociferated, '  pleases  all. 
The  difinition  is  orthodox.  Put  out  the  Nestorians.  Expel 
the  enemies  of  God.  Yesterday  the  definition  pleased  all.  Let 
the  definition  be  subscribed  before  the  gospels  and  no  fraud 
practised  against  the  faith.  Whoever  subscribes  not  is  a  heretic. 
The  Holy  Spirit  dictated  the  definition.  Let  it  be  signed  forth- 
with. Put  out  the  heretics.  Put  out  the  Nestorians.  Let  the 
definition  be  confirmed  or  we  will  depart.  Whoever  will  not 
subscribe  may  depart.  Those  who  oppose  may  go  to  Rome.' 
But  the  commissioners  swere  determined.  The  emperor's 
sovereign  will  must  be  obeyed  ;  and  the  council,  after  a  tempo- 
rary resistance,  yielded  at  length  to  the  legatine  obstinacy  and 
especially  to  the  imperial  power. 

Many  considerations  shew  the  Monophysitism  of  this  Chal- 
cedonian definition  and  of  the  Chalcedonian  Council.  The 
omission  of  the  definition,  in  the  acts  of  the  council,  throws  a 
suspicion  on  its  orthodoxy.  The  formulary  is  omitted  in  Eva- 
grius,  Liberatus,  Binius,  Crabb,  and  Labbe.  The  judges  of 
the  council,  in  an  indirect  manner,  mention  its  contents,  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  denouncing  its  heterodoxy.  The  design  was, 

1  Eutyches  dixit  unionem  ex  duabus  naturis.     Alex.   10.    330.     Evag.    II     18. 
Crabb,  1.  879.     Bin.  3.  334. 

2  Omnes  episcopi,  praeter  Romanos  et  aliquos  Orientates,  clamavemnt,     Defini- 
tio  omnibus  placet.'     Bin.  3.  334.     Labb.  4.  1446,  1150.     Godeaa,  3.  480. 

21* 


324  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

no  doubt,  to  keep  it  out  of  sight ;  a  plain  indication  of  its  sup- 
posed heresy. 

A  comparison  of  this  confession  with  those  of  Eutyches  and 
Dioscorus  at  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  will 
evince  their  indentity.  This  of  Chalcedon  declared,  that  Jesus 
was  '  of  two  natures.'1  This  was  the  precise  creed  of  Eutyches 
and  Dioscorus.  Eutyches,  in  the  Byzantine  council,  professed 
his  belief,  that  Christ  was  *  of  two  natures.'2  Dioscorus  avowed 
a  similar  profession  at  Ephesus  and  repeated  it  at  Chalcedon.3 
These  Chalcedonian  and  Eutychian  confessions  contained  the 
same  faith  in  the  same  language.  Leo's,  and  the  last  of  Chal- 
cedon taught,  on  the  contrary,  that  our  Lord  existed  '  IN  two 
natures.'4 

The  opposition  of  the  Senators,  Romans,  and  Orientals, 
shewed  their  conviction  of  its  Eutychianism.  These  wielded 
the  Pontifical  and  Imperial  power,  and  opposed  the  definition 
with  obstinacy.  Pascasinus,  Lucentius,  and  Boniface,  who 
represented  Leo,  resolved  to  leave  Chalcedon,  return  to  Italy, 
and  celebrate  a  western  council  for  the  establishment  of  the 
true  faith,  if  this  Chalcedonian  creed  should  be  confirmed. 
This  resolution  was  countenanced  by  the  commissioners,  who 
represented  the  Emperor;  and  a  few  Orientals  echoed  the 
declaration.5  This  determination,  in  strong  colours,  portrays 
their  opinion  of  the  confession,  which  they  resisted  with  such 
warmth  and  resolution.  These  would  have  submitted,  had  the 
definition  in  their  mind,  contained  Catholicism. 

Godeau  and  Alexander,  two  modern  zealots  for  Romanism, 
admit  the  ambiguity  and  inadequacy  of  this  Chalcedonian  defini- 
tion. The  definition,  says  Godeau,  '  did  not,  in  sufficiently 
express  terms,  condemn  the  Eutychian  heresy.'  According  to 
Alexander,  many  additions  were  necessary  for  the  overthrow 
of  Eutychianism.  The  accomplishment  of  this  end  required  a 
creed,  teaching  our  Lord's  existence,  not  only  of,  but  *  IN  two 
natures,  without  confusion,  change  or  division.6  Godeau,  there- 
fore, acknowledged  the  ambiguity  of  the  definition,  and  Alex- 
ander its  inadequacy. 

1  O  te/joj  ex  Svo  fyvasw  £#E&.     Evag.  II.  18.     Ex  duabus  habet  naturis.     Crabb, 
1.  880. 

2  Ex  Svo  tyvaeuv.     Theoph.  69.     Eutyches  dixit  etiam  ex  duabus  naturis.     Bin 

3.  120. 

3  Confiteor  ex  duabus  naturis  fuisse  Dominum.     Bin.  3.  123.     Labb.  4.  1018. 

4  Ex  Svo  tyvotaiv.     Evag.  II.  4.     Asuv  Svo  $v<j£t,$  toy? «-  s IVOA  sv  Xpwta.     Labb. 

4.  1452.     Bin.  3.  130. 

e  Bin.  3.  336.     Labb.  4.  1450.     Godeau,  3.  480. 

e  Elle  ne  condemnoit  pas  assez  expressement  1'heresie  naissante  d'Eutyches. 
Godenu,  3.  479. 

Multa  deesse  ad  profligandam  haeresim  Eutychianam.  Ad  id  enim  satis  non 
esse,  ut  Christus  ex  duabus  naturas  diceretur ;  sed  necesse  ut  in  duabus  naturia 
subsidero  diceretur.  Alex.  10.  376. 


CONDUCT    OF    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON.  325 

The  Monophysitism  of  the  Chalcedonian  Council,  the  Ro- 
mans and  a  few  Orientals  excepted,  appears  from  the  obstinacy 
with  which  they  insisted  on  the  definition,  in  defiance  of  Impe- 
rial and  Pontifical  authority.  The  Chalcedonians,  on  this  occa- 
sion, manifested  more  determination  than  the  clergy,  at  any 
other  time,  evinced  against  the  emperor  and  the  pontiff.  The 
prelatical  suffrages,  in  general,  were  the  ready  echoes  of  the 
imperial  and  pontifical  will.  The  Greeks  obeyed  his  majesty, 
and  the  Latins  seldom  disobeyed  his  holiness.  But  the  assem- 
bled prelacy,  on  this  momentous  occasion,  displayed  an  aston- 
ishing firmness  and  constancy.  Their  determination  once  with- 
stood the  imperial  commissioners,  and  four  times  the  Roman 
vicars.  These  reasoned  and  remonstrated  ;  and  those  resisted 
and  vociferated.  The  opposition  was  uttered  in  yells,  which 
would  have  terrified  ordinary  minds,  and  commanded  obedience 
on  ordinary  occasions.  The  dissension,  says  Alexander,  was 
great,  and  the  shouts  tumultuary.  All,  says  Godeau,  cried  that 
'  whosoever  should  refuse  to  sign  the  definition  was  a  heretic.'1 
All  this  obstinacy  and  outcry  were  in  favour  of  a  creed,  which 
would  have  been  subscribed  by  Eutyches,  Dioscorus,  Mongos, 
Philoxenus,  Fullo,  and  Zanzel. 

The  Monophysitism  of  the  council  also  may  be  evinced  from 
its  reasons  for  the  condemnation  of  Dioscorus.  The  Alexan- 
drian Patriarch,  said  Antolius  in  full  synod  and  without  any  to 
gainsay,  «  was  not  condemned  for  any  error  of  faith,  but  for 
excommunicating  Leo,  and  refusing,  when  summoned,  to  attend 
the  council.'  The  same  fact  is  stated  by  Evagrius  and  Pope 
Nicholas.  Justinian,  also,  according  to  Valesius  in  his  annota- 
tions on  Theodorus,  declared  that  Dioscorus  was  not  condemn- 
ed for  any  deviation  from  the  faith.2  The  patriarch  indeed 
was  charged  with  a  few  practical  foibles,  such  as  tyranny, 
extortion,  fornication,  adultery,  murder,  and  ravishment.  He 
was  convicted  of  burning  houses,  lavishing  the  alms  of  the 
faithful  on  strumpets  and  buffoons,  and  admitting  the  fair  Pan- 
sophia,  in  broad  day,  into  the  patriarchal  bath  and  palace.3 
But  none  accused  him  of  heterodoxy.  Heresy  was  not  among 
the  reasons  assigned  by  the  council  for  his  deposition  and  ban 
ishment.  His  faith,  therefore,  was  unsuspected  of  error,  and 
consonant  with  the  common  theology.  These  considerations 
shew  the  faith  of  the  Chalcedonians,  and  the  opinion  entertained 
of  their  definition. 

1  Tons  crierent,  one  quiconque  refuserent  de  la  signer  etoit  heretique.  Godeau, 
3.  479. 

*  Propter  fidem  non  est  damnatus  Dioscorus.  Bin.  6.  505.  Dioscorus  lion  cb 
ilium  in  fide  errorem  damnatus  fuit.  Valesius,  3.  330. 

3  Bin.  3.  7,  247,  335-     Labb.,  4.  1447.     Alex.  10.  356.     Evag.  II.  18. 


326  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

The  Chalcedonian  council,  at  length,  were  forced  by  the 
emperor  to  sign  a  third  form  alary  of  faith.  The  former  confes- 
sion had  to  be  resigned,  in  obedience  to  his  majesty's  sovereign 
command.  The  emperor  in  the  early  days  of  the  church,  as 
the  pope  at  a  later  period,  influenced,  at  pleasure,  the  decisions 
of  holy  infallible  councils.  Theodosius,  with  facility,  sustained 
Monophysitism  at  Ephesus.  Marcian,  with  equal  ease,  estab- 
lished Catholicism  at  Chalcedon.  He  ordered  eighteen  bishops, 
selected  from  the  East,  Asia,  Pontus,  Thracia,  and  Illyria,  to 
meet  in  the  oratory  of  .Euphemia,  and  compose  a  confession 
which  might  obtain  universal  approbation.  These,  accordingly, 
assembled  at  the  place  appointed,  and,  with  becoming  submission 
and  easy  versatility,  produced  a  creed,  according  to  Marcian's 
imperial  directions  and  Leo's  pontifical  epistle.  This  formulary 
embodied  the  Nicene,  Constantinopolitan,  and  Ephesian  faith, 
with  the  letters  of  Cyril  and  Leo,  and  declared  that  the  Son  of 
God,  existing  'IN  two  natures,'  without  confusion  or  division, 
was  in  His  Deity,  consubstantial  with  God,  and  in  His  humanity, 
consubstantial  with  man.1  The  infallible  fathers,  for  the  third 
time,  yelled  approbation. 

This  confession  was  of  imperial  and  pontifical  dictation.  The 
emperor,  not  the  council,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  pope,  pre- 
scribed the  formulary.  All  this  indeed,  Alexander,  attached  as 
he  was  to  Romanism,  has  confessed.  This  form  of  belief,  says 
this  author,  *  was  enjoined  by  the  emperor.'2  Christians  there- 
fore, at  the  present  day,  profess,  on  this  topic,  a  royal  creed. 
Popish  and  Protestant  Christendom  has  received  a  form  of  faith, 
which,  though  true,  is  imperial,  and  for  which,  the  Romish  and 
Reformed  are  indebted  to  Marcian. 

The  abettors  of  Romanism  would  be  ready  to  exult,  if,  in 
the  annals  of  the  Reformation,  they  could  find  an  instance  of 
vaciUation  equal  to  that  of  Chalcedon.  The  history  would  be 
related  in  all  the  parade  of  language.  But  all  the  councils  of 
Protestantism  afford  no  exemplification  of  such  versatility  and 
fluctuation.  Bossuet,  in  all  the  records  of  history,  and,  which 
is  more,  in  all  the  treasury  of  his  own  imagination,  could  dis- 
cover no  equal  discordancy,  during  all  the  transactions  which 
attended  the  Reformation,  in  its  origin,  progress,  and  estab- 
lishment. 

But  flexibility,  in  the  council,  failed  to  produce  unanimity  in 
the  church.  The  infallibility  of  the  Chalcedonian  assembly  was 
mocked,  and  its  apostolical  or  rather  imperial  faith  contemned. 

1  Tpse  sit  perfectus  Deus  et  perfectus  homo  in  duabus  naturis,  sine  confurione  ef 
divisione.  Canisias,  1.  69.  Liberatus,  c.  12.  Bin.  3.  336,  340.  Crabb.  1.  885 
Labb.  4.  1447.  Du  Pin,  I.  674. 

8  Jussu  tandem  Imperatoris.     Alex.  10-376. 


CONDUCT  OF  THE  COUNCIL  OF  CHALCEDON.       327 

The  African,  Asiatic,  and  European  Monophysite  disclaimed 
the  definition  of  the  emperor  and  the  pontiff';  and  their  oppo- 
sition, did  not,  as  usual,  evaporate  in  frothy  anathemas,  but 
terminated  in  battle  and  carnage.  The  Chalcedonian  prelacy, 
according  to  Liberatus,  were,  when  they  returned  to  their  sees, 
torn  by  an  unprecedented  schism.1  The  Egyptians,  Thracians, 
and  Palestinians  followed  Dioscorus ;  while  the  Orientals, 
Pontians,  and  Asiatics  adhered  to  Flavian.  Romanism  was 
disgraced  by  a  train  of  revolutions  and  massacres,  such  as  never 
dishonoured  the  Reformation.  Schism  and  heresy  extended  to 
all  Christendom,  and  embraced,  in  wide  amplitude,  Greeks 
and  Latins,  emperors,  clergy,  and  populace. 

Six  emperors  reigned  after  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  and 
during  the  rage  of  the  Monophysan  controversy.  These  were 
Marcian,  Leo,  Zeno,  Basiliscus,  Anastasius,  and  Justin  ;  and 
were  divided  between  the  Eutychian  and  Chalcedonian  faith. 
Marcian,  Leo,  and  Justin  patronized  Chalcedonianism ;  while 
Zeno,  Basiliscus,  and  Anastasius,  in  the  general  opinion,  coun- 
tenanced Eutychianisrn.  Marcian  convoked  the  council  of 
Chalcedon,  presided  in  its  deliberations,  and  supported  its 
theology  with  devoted  fidelity  and  imperial  power  ;  but  by  the 
unhallowed  instrumentality  of  violence  and  persecution.  Leo, 
Marcian' s  successor,  maintained  the  same  system  by  the  same 
unholy  weapons.2 

Zeno,  Basiliscus,  and  Anastasius  have  been  reckoned,  perhaps 
with  some  unfairness,  among  the  partizans  of  heresy.  Zeno, 
during  his  whole  reign,  feigned  a  regard  for  Catholicism  and 
proclaimed  himself  its  protector.  But  some  of  his  actions  seemed 
to  favour  Monophysitism ;  and  his  name,  in  consequence,  has, 
by  the  partial  pen  of  prejudice  and  popery,  been  entered  in  the 
black  roll  of  heretics  who  Attempted  the  subversion  of  orthodoxy. 
He  issued  the  Henoticon,  protected  Acacius,  and  restored  the 
exiled  Mongos  and  Fullo  to  the  patriarchal  thrones  of  Alexan- 
dria and  Antioch.  These  were  crimes  never  to  be  forgiven  by 
the  narrow  mind  of  bigotry.  The  transactions  provoked  the 
high  indignation  of  Facundus,  Baronius,  Alexander,  Petavius, 
and  Godeau.3  Baronius  represents  Zeno  as  the  patron  of 
heresy  and  perfidy,  and  the  enemy  of  Catholicism  and 
Christianity. 

Basiliscus,  for  the  sake  of  unity  and  consistency,  both 
denounced  and  patronized  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  and  its 
theology.  His  majesty,  prompted  by  ^lurus,  issued,  on  his 

1  Scissio  facta  est  inter  eos,  qualis  ante  nunquam  contigerat.  Liberatus,  c.  12 
Labb.  6.  438. 

*  Evag.  II.  8.     Alex.  10.  398. 

a  Facun.  XII.  4.    Spon.  482.  Ill     Alex.  10.  421.    Petav.  1.  320.   Godeau,  3.  356. 


328  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

accession,  a  circular  letter,  wnich  approved  the  councils  of 
Nicoea,  Constantinople,  and  Ephesus,  and  condemned  and 
anathematized  that  of  Chalcedon,  as  the  occasion  of  massacre 
and  bloodshed.  This  precious  manifesto  was  signed  by  Fullo, 
Paul,  and  Anastasius  of  Antioch,  Ephesus,  and  Jerusalem  ; 
and  supported,  in  the  rear,  by  about  five  hundred  of  the  Asiatic 
prelacy.  The  emperor,  in  these  transactions,  was  influenced 
by  the  empress  Zenodia.  But  his  majesty,  varying  in  this 
manner  from  Catholicism,  varied^  in  a  short  time,  from  himself, 
a,nd  veered  round  to  orthodoxy.  He  attempted,  by  compulsion, 
to  obtain  the  approbation  of  Acacius.  But  Acacius  opposed 
him,  being  supported  by  a  multitude  of  monks  and  women, 
who  pursued  the  emperor  with  maledictions.  This  movement, 
in  a  few  moments,  converted  Basiliscus  to  the  true  faith.  He 
issued,  in  consequence,  an  anticircular  edict,  rejecting  the 
former,  confirming  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  and  anathematizing 
Eutyches  and  all  other  heresiarchs.  His  versatility,  however, 
was  unavailing.  Zeno  drove  the  usurper  from  the  imperial 
authority,  and  banished  him  to  Cappadocia,  where  he  died  of 
hunger  and  cold.1 

Anastasius  succeeded  Zeno  in  491,  and  was  excommunicated 
by  Symmachus  for  heresy.  The  emperor,  however,  notwith- 
standing the  anathema,  seems,  according  to  Evagrius,  neither 
to  have  patronized  nor  opposed  Catholicism.  He  loved  peace 
and  withstood  novelty.  He  protected  all  his  subjects,  who 
were  content  to  worship  according  to  their  conscience,  without 
molestation  to  their  fellow-christians.  But  he  repressed  inno- 
vators, who  fostered  dissension.  He  expelled,  in  consequence, 
Euphemius,  Flavian,  and  Elias,  bishops  of  Constantinople, 
Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  ;  and  this  incurred  the  wrath  of  the 
pope  and  Vitalian.  The  latter,  followed  by  an  army  of  Huns 
and  barbarians,  declared  himself  the  champion  of  the  faith. 
Actuated  with  this  resolution,  the  warrior,  in  the  name  of  the 
Prince  of  Peace,  depopulated  Thracia,  exterminated  65,000 
men,  and,  in  bloodshed,  established  the  council  of  Chalcedon 
and  the  faith  of  Leo.2 

A  diversity,  similar  to  this  of  the  emperors,  was  manifested 
by  the  clergy,  the  populace,  and  the  monks.  Dioscorus,  in 
Alexandria,  was  succeeded  by  Proterios,  the  friend  of  Catholi- 
cism. But  the  throne  of  the  new  patriarch  had  to  be  supported 
by  two  thousand  armed  soldiery ;  and  the  Alexandrian  populace, 
on  the  death  of  Marcian,  assassinated  Proterios  in  the  baptistery 

1  Evag.  111.  5,  7.     Liberat.  c.  16.     Theoph.  84.     Zonaras,  2.  41.     Blsciola  420 
Alex.  10.  418,  420.     Godeau,  3.  619.     Victor,  324. 

»  Evag.  111.  35.     Liberat.  c.  16.     Theoph.  107.     Alex  10.25.     Labb.  4.  477. 


CONDUCT    OF    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON.  329 

regardless  of  the  sacred  temple  and  the  pascal  solemnity.  The 
waters  of  baptism  and  of  the  sanctuary  were  crimsoned  with 
his  blood.  The  mangled  body,  in  all  its  frightfulness,  was, 
amid  insults  and  mockery,  exhibited  in  the  Tetraphylon  :  and 
then,  covered  with  wounds,  was,  in  fiendish  derision,  dragged 
through  the  city.  The  assassins,  says  Evagrius,  shocking  to 
tell,  beat  the  senseless  limbs,  devoured  the  reeking  entrails, 
committed  the  torn  carcass  to  the  flames,  and  its  ashes  to  the 
winds.1  The  barbarians,  though  stained  with  blood,  burned, 
through  fear  of  pollution,  the  chair  of  the  patriarch,  and  washed 
the  altar  on  which  he  had  sacrificed  with  sea-water,  as  if  it  had 
been  defiled  with  his  touch  or  his  ministry. 

jElurus,  the  partizan  of  Monophysitism,  was  substituted  for 
Proterios.  He  was  banished  to  Cherson,  or  some  say,  to  Oasis, 
by  Leo  ;  but  was  afterward  restored  by  Basiliscus.  He,  at  last, 
poisoned  Jiimself,  being,  says  the  charitable  Godeau, '  unworthy 
of  a  more  honourable  executioner.'  The  one  party,  after  his 
death,  elected  Mongos,  and  the  other,  Timothy,  to  the  patri- 
archal dignity.  Zeno,  however,  obliged  Mongos,  who  was  the 
partizan  of  Eutychianism,  to  yield.  But  the  triumph  of  the 
Chalcedonian  party  was  transitory.  Mongos,  on  the  death  of 
Timothy,  was,  by  an  edict  of  Zeno  and  the  favour  of  Acacius, 
appointed  his  successor.2 

Palestine  in  the  mean  time,  became  the  scene  of  similar 
outrage  and  revolution.  Juvenal,  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem, 
was  deposed,  and  Theodosius,  a  Monophysite,  ordained  in  his 
place.  The  new  patriarch  occupied  Jerusalem  with  an  army 
of  felons  and  outlaws,  who  in  the  name  of  religion  and  under 
the  mask  of  zeal,  pillaged  and  murdered.  The  sepulchre  of 
Immanuel  was  defiled  with  blood  ;  and  the  gates  of  the  city, 
which  had  witnessed  these  massacres,  were,  in  tumultuary 
rebellion,  guarded  against  the  army  of  the  emperor.  These, 
notwithstanding  their  inhumanity  and  rebellion,  were  counte- 
nanced by  Eudoxia,  wife  to  Theodosius.3  The  empress  used 
or  rather  abused  her  royal  authority,  in  support  of  these  san- 
guinary zealots  for  the  Monophysite  theology. 

Antioch  was  occupied  by  the  rival  patriarchs  Calendion  and 
Fullo.  Calendion  maintained  the  Chalcedonian  faith,  and  Fullo 
the  Eutychian  theory.  Fullo,  besides,  in  unpardonable  impiety, 
added  a  supplement  of  his  own  invention,  to  the  Trisagion, 
which,  in  those  days  of  superstition  and  credulity,  was  regarded 

1  More   eanum,  interiora  ejus  degustarunt,  reliquumque   corpus   igni,   cineres 
vento,  tradiderunt.     Spon.  457,  IV.     Evag.  II.  8.     Liberal,  c.  15.     Alex.  10.  394. 
Godeau,  3,  556.     Victor,  322. 

2  Liberat.  c.  16.     Bisciola,  420.     Godeau,  3.  623.     Labb.5.  215.     Moreri,  8.  136. 
»  Evag.  II.  5.     Theoph.  73.     Alex.  10.  416.     Moreri,  8.  90.     Victor,  322. 


330  TIIE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

as  the  sacred  hymn,  sung  by  the  holy  angels  and  seraphs  tha. 
surround  the  throne  of  God.  Zeno,  at  first,  patronized  Calen- 
dion  and  banished  Fullo.  But  Calendion,  in  the  end,  was  sus- 
pected of  favouring  the  revolt  of  Illus  and  Leontius  ;  and  the 
emperor  therefore  banished  the  patriarch  to  Oasis,  and  outraged 
Christianity,  says  Godeau,  by  establishing  Fullo.1 

The  bishops  and  monks  varied  like  the  patriarchs  and  empe- 
rors. Many,  says  Godeau,  *  followed  the  faith  of  the  court 
rather  than  that  of  the  Gospel ;  and  displayed  a  baseness, 
unworthy  of  men  who  should  have  been  the  columns  of  the 
truth.'  Five  hundred  bishops  signed  the  encyclical  manifesto 
of  Basiliscus;  and,  according  to  their  own  declaration,  'with 
willingness  and  alacrity.'  These,  again,  on  the  dethronement 
of  Basiliscus  and  the  restoration  of  Zeno,  deprecated  the  whole 
transaction,  alleged  imperial  compulsion  as  a  palliation  for  their 
crime,  and  begged  pardon  of  Acacius  for  their  offence.2 

These  rival  factions  fulminated  against  each  other  mutual 
and  unwearied  excommunications.  The  lightning  of  anathemas 
continued,  in  uninterrupted  coruscations,  to  flash  through  the 
African,  Asiatic,  and  European  nations,  and  to  radiate  from 
East  to  West.  The  spiritual  artillery  was  admirably  served, 
and,  in  continued  explosions,  carried,  not  death  indeed,  but 
damnation  in  every  direction.  Proterios,  Timothy,  Juvenal, 
and  Calendion  cursed  JElurus,  Mongos,  Theodosius,  and  Fullo  : 
while  ^Elurus,  Mongos,  Theodosius,  and  Fullo,  in  grateful  re- 
ciprocation, cursed  Proterios,  Timothy,  Juvenal,  and  Calendion. 
Acacius  cursed  the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria.  Jerusalem,  and 
Antioch  who  were  not  slow  in  repaying  the  compliment.  Felix, 
the  Roman  pontiff,  cursed  all  by  wholesale.  Intrenched  in  the 
Vatican,  the  vicar-general  of  God  continued,  from  his  ecclesias- 
tical battery,  to  thunder  excommunications  against  Mongos, 
Fullo,  and  Acacius.3 

Fullo,  who  abetted  Monophysitism  and  corrupted  the  Trisa- 
gion,  seems  to  have  been  the  chief  object  of  these  inverted 
benedictions.  Quinian,  in  a  Sacred  Synod,  aimed  no  less  than 
twelve  anathemas  at  Fullo's  devoted  head.  The  example  was 
followed  by  Acacius.  The  patriarch  of  Antioch,  it  seems, 
had  in  483,  taken  the  liberty  of  writing  an  epistle  full  of  blas- 
phemy to  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  blasphemy 
caused  Acacius,  holy  man,  to  shudder.  He  assembled  a 
council,  therefore,  and  in  full  synod,  condemned,  says  Lnbbe", 
the  mad  error  of  the  mad  patriarch.  But  the  Roman  pontiff, 

»  Theoph.  92.     Evag.  III.  8.     Godeau,  3.  649.     Labb.  5.  271. 
«  Evag.  III.  5,  9.     Liberatus,  c.  16.     Alex.  10.  418.     Godeau,  3.  620. 
3  Evag.  III.  5,  6.     Theoph.  104.     Godea.  3.  649.     Spon.  457,  484.   IV.     Alex 
10.  420. 


MONOPHYSITISM    AFTER    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON.       33^ 

as  was  right,  excelled  even  the  Byzantine  patriarch  in  a  suitable 
name  and  in  an  appropriate  sentence,  for  the  impugner  of  the 
Chalcedonian  faith  and  the  corrupter  of  the  sacred  hymn. 
Felix  denominated  FuUo  the  first-born  of  the  devil,  and,  in  a 
holy  Roman  Council,  condemned  him  as  a  patron  of  Arianism, 
Sabellianism,  impiety,  heathenism,  and  idolatry.1 

But  the  hardest,  or  at  least  the  most  signal  cursing-match, 
on  the  occasion,  was  between  Felix  and  Acacius.  The  Byzan- 
tine hierarch,  indeed,  had  committed  nothing  to  merit  the 
honour  of  excommunication.  He  disclaimed,  on  ah1  occasions, 
the  heresy  of  Eutychianism.  He  opposed  the  Monophysan 
emperor  Basiliscus  and  his  circular  edict,  with  vigour  and 
success.  He  assembled  a  Constantinopolitan  synod,  and  con- 
demned ^Elurus,  Fullo,  John,  and  Paul,  who  were  the  Mono- 
physite  bishops  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Apamea,  and  Ephesus. 
He  issued  a  synodal  reprobation  of  Fullo's  addition  to  the 
Trisagion,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  Acacius,  was  the  song  of 
the  Cherubim  in  Heaven.  He  patronized  no  heresy ;  and, 
which  should  have  recommended  him  to  mercy,  he  was  as 
ignorant  and  superstitious  even  as  his  Roman  infallibility.  But 
he  signed  the  Henoticon  for  the  sake  of  peace,  and  communi- 
cated with  Fullo  without  a  formal  recognition  of  the  council  of 
Chalcedon.  These  were  the  ostensible  reasons  of  the  pontiff's 
detestation  and  anathemas.  He  urged  the  equality  of  the 
Byzantine  with  the  Roman  See  ;  and,  of  course,  rejected  the 
pontifical  supremacy.2  This  was  the  real  reason  and  the 
unpardonable  sin,  for  which  Felix  honoured  Acacius  with 
anathemas  and  degradation. 

His  infallibility's  denunciations,  however,  were,  at  Con- 
stantinople, a  subject  of  sheer  mockery.  Acacius,  knowing 
the  ridiculousness  of  tbe  attempt,  received  the  intelligence  of 
his  deposition  with  perfect  contempt;  and,  nothing  loath, 
returned  the  compliment  in  kind  with  promptitude  and  devo- 
tion. The  patriarch,  like  another  Dioscorus,  excommunicated 
his  infallibility,  and  struck  his  name  out  of  the  Diptycs  or 
sacred  roll  of  registry.  He  then,  in  his  usual  manner,  and  in 
defiance  of  Felix,  continued  his  ministry  and  retained  his 
dignity  till  the  day  of  his  death.3 

Acacius  was  supported  against  Felix  by  Zeno,  and  all  the 

1  Insanus  ille  insani  Fullonis  error  condemnatus  fuit.     Labb.  5.  229, 230.     Petrus 
primogenitus  Diaboli  filius.     Labb.  5. 166.     LeFoulon  qu'il  appelle  le  lils  premier 
ne  du  Diable.     Godeau,  3.  650.     Bisciola,  424. 

2  Cedere  non  debere  Romanae  Ecclesiae.     Labb.    5.   246.     Evag.   III.   5,    6. 
Liberat.  c.  17.     Spon.  484.  IV.     Bruy.  1.  255.     Alex.  10,  420. 

3  Ipse  excommunicavit  Summum  Pontificem.     Cossart,  3. 22.     Qui  vicem  repen 
dens,  Felicia  nomen  erasit  e  diptychis.     Petav.  1.  330.     Ad  mortem,  patrocinante 
"mperatore,  remansit  sacrificans.     Liberal.  3.  18 


832  THE    VARIATIONS*    OF    POPERY  : 

oriental  clergy.  The  emperor,  knowing  the  illegality  and 
injustice  of  the  sentence,  held  over  the  patriarch  the  protecting 
shield  of  his  royal  authority.  The  Greek  clergy,  on  the  same 
account,  contemned  the  Latin  or  Roman  anathemas,  and  com- 
municated with  the  Byzantine  patriarch.  Felix,  besides,  was, 
on  this  occasion,  unfortunate  in  his  own  agents.  Misenus  and 
Vitalis,  whom  he  had  commissioned  as  his  envoys  to  Constanti- 
nople against  Acacius,  joined  in  communion  with  the  patriarch; 
and  heard,  without  disapprobation,  the  name  of  Mongos 
repeated  from  the  sacred  registry.  Titus,  who  was  afterward 
despatched  on  a  similar  errand,  copied  the  example  of  Vitalis 
and  Misenus.1  These,  in  consequence,  put  Felix  to  the  task  of 
issuing  their  excommunication,  which,  however,  his  infallibility, 
from  his  facility  in  this  duty,  seems  to  have  thought  no  trouble. 

The  Roman  pontiffs  had  hitherto  patronised  the  Chalcedo- 
nian  faith,  and  rejected,  with  resolution  and  perseverance,  the 
Monophysite  system.  Leo  had  supported  the  council  of 
Ghalcedon,  with  all  his  talents  and  influence.  Felix  had 
exhausted  himself  in  cursing  all  its  enemies.  But  the  hierarchs 
of  the  apostolic  see  were  soon  destined  to  alter  their  system, 
and  exemplify  the  changeableness  of  all  earthly  things. 
Vigilius,  who  was  a  Roman  pontiff,  and  Martin  who  was  a 
Roman  saint,  deserted  the  council  of  Chalcedon  and  went  over 
to  the  camp  of  the  enemy. 

Vigilius,  in  537,  was  raised  to  the  pontifical  throne  by  the 
Empress  Theodora,  on  condition  that,  on  his  promotion,  he 
would  profess  Eutychianism,  and  concur  in  restoring  Anathe- 
mus  to  the  patriarchal  chair  of  Constantinople.  The  new 
pontiff  was  faithful  to  this  engagement  in  the  profession  of 
heresy.  He  condemned  the  Chalcedonian  faith,  and  declared 
in  favor  of  Monophysitism.  His  confession,  addressed  on  this 
occasion  to  Theodora  and  other  partizans  of  heterodoxy,  has 
been  preserved  by  Liberatus.2  He  rejected  the  dogma  of  two 
natures  in  the  Son  of  God,  and  repealed  the  celebrated  epistle 
of  Leo.  His  infallibility  then  proceeded,  in  due  form  and 
without  delay  or  equivocation,  to  pronounce  an  anathema 
against  any  person  who  should  confess  two  forms  in  the  Medi- 
ator. This  was  like  a  man  determined  to  do  business.  His 
holiness,  in  consequence,  had  the  honour  of  cursing  his  several 
predecessors  and  successors,  the  holy  council  of  Chalcedon, 

i  Evag.  III.  21.     Spon.  484.  ii.     Bin.  3.  614.     Labb.  5.  246. 

8  Vigilius  suam  fidem  scripsit;  duas  in  Christo  damnavit  naturas;  et  resolvens 
tamum  Papae  Leonis  sic  dixit,  non  duas  Christum  confitemur  naturas ;  sed  ex  dna- 
bus  natuvis  compositum  unum  filium.  Qui  dixit  in  Christo  duas  formas,  anathema 
sit.  Liberat.  c.  22.  Anathema  dicebat  iis  qui  confitentnr  duas  in  Christo  naturas. 
Bellarmin,  1.  160.  Alex.  10-  429. 


MONOPHYSITISM    AFTER    THE    COUNCIL    OF    CHALCEDON.      333 

and  the  majority  of  the  past,  present,  and  future  Christian 
world. 

Baronius  and  Binius  have  endeavoured  to  prove  this  docu- 
ment, preserved  in  Liberatus,  a  forgery.  Godeau  doubts  its 
genuineness.  But  their  arguments,  which  scarcely  deserve  the 
name,  have  been  confuted  by  Bellarmine,  Du  Pin,  and  Alexan- 
der. Liberatus,  Victor,  and  Facundus,  cotemporary  authors 
vouch  for  its  authenticity.  Bellarmine  admits  the  heresy  of 
Vigilius  ;  but  consoles  himself  under  the  distress  occasioned  by 
such  an  event,  with  the  real  or  fancied  dissimulation  of  its 
author,  and  the  illegality  of  his  claim,  during  the  life  of  his  pre- 
decessor and  rival  Silverius,  to  the  papacy.  His  infallibility's 
approbation  of  heresy,  according  to  the  cardinal,  was  all  exter- 
nal profession,  while,  in  his  soul,  he  was  the  devoted  friend  of 
Catholicism.  Alexander  calls  Vigilius  '  a  hidden  traitor.'1  The 
cardinal  and  the  sorbonnist,  it  seems,  possessed  a  faculty  of  dis- 
cerning the  heart,  and  discovered  the  superiority  of  hypocrisy  to 
heresy.  Vigilius,  besides,  say  these  authors,  could  be  no  true 
pope  prior  to  the  death  of  Silverius,  as  two  could  not  reign  at 
the  same  time.  The  church,  however,  has  often  been  blessed 
with  several  cotemporary  heads,  and  the  Messiah,  supplied,  on 
the  same  occasion,  with  several  vicars-general.  Vigilius,  what- 
ever might  have  been  his  right  when  he  issued  his  hopeful  con- 
fession, was,  in  fact,  the  sovereign  pontiff,  and  was  never  again 
elected  or  ordained.  He  occupied  the  pontifical  chair  and 
exercised  the  pontifical  authority,  in  the  administration  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  throughout  papal  Christendom. 

The  sainted  Martin,  in  649,  followed  the  footsteps  of  Vigilius, 
and,  in  conjunction  with  the  Lateran  synod,  decided  in  favour 
of  Eutychianism.  This  assembly,  in  which  his  holiness  presided 
amounted  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  members,  who  all,  in  the 
fifth  canon  and  with  the  greatest  unanimity, '  condemned  every 
person,  who,  according  to  the  holy  fathers,  does  not,  in  truth 
and  propriety,  confess  one  incarnated  nature  of  God  the 
Word.'2  The  sentence  would  have  satisfied  Dioscorus,  Mongos, 
or  Fullo.  Bellarmine  represents  the  condemnation,  pronounced 
by  the  holy  synod,  as  equivalent  to  an  anathema.  Vigilius' 
decision  seems  to  have  been  personal.  Martin's  was  synodal. 
The  one  was  signed  only  by  the  author  ;  while  the  other  was 
subscribed  by  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  the  Italian  prelacy. 

1  Dico  Vigilium  damnasse  Oatholicam  fidern  solum  exterior!  professione,  neque 
animo  haereticus  fuit.  Bellarmin,  1.  760.  Occultus  proditor.  Alex.  10.  429. 
Bin.  4.  400.  Godeau,  4.  203. 

'2  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur,  proprie  et  secundum  veritatem, 
unam  naturam  Dei  Verbi  incarnatara,  condemnatus  sit.  Bin.  4.  733.  Crabb.  2 
234.  Labb.  7.  360.  Bellarmin,  III.  4. 


334  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

But  Martin,  who  is  a  saint,  had,  like  Vigilius,  who  was  little 
better  than  a  sinner,  the  distinguished  honour  of  anathematizing 
every  professor  of  orthodoxy. 

The  council  of  the  Late  ran  presents  a  complete  contrast  tc 
that  of  Chalcedon.  The  definition  of  Chalcedon  was  suggested 
by  the  pope  to  an  orthodox  emperor,  by  whom  it  was  forced,  in 
the  midst  of  noisy  opposition,  on  a  reluctant  synod.  The  canon 
of  the  Lateran  was  issued  by  the  pope,  in  a  willing  council,  in 
opposition  to  a  heterodox  emperor.  Marcian  patronized  Leo 
and  the  Chalcedonians.  Constans  withstood  Martin  and  the 
Laterans.  The  one  assembly  defined  a  duality  of  natures  in  the 
Son  of  God.  The  other  declared  in  favour  of  his  simple  unity. 

This  distracted  state  of  the  church  induced  Zeno,  prompted, 
some  say,  by  Acacius,  to  publish  the  celebrated  Henoticon  or 
edict  of  union.  The  emperor's  design,  in  this  undertaking, 
was  pacific.  He  intended  to  conciliate  the  partizans  of  Mono- 
physitism  and  Catholicism,  and  supply  an  exposition  of  belief, 
which  each  jarring  faction,  without  compromisif  g  its  principles, 
might  sign.  The  means,  at  first  sight,  seemed  calculated  to 
obtain  the  end.  The  Henoticon,  preserved  by  Evagrius  and 
Liberatus,  was  addressed  to  the  Alexandrian,  Egyptian,  Lybian, 
and  Pentapolitan  clergy  and  laity.  This  royal  edict,  having, 
in  the  introduction,  lamented  the  dissensions,  which  had  occa- 
sioned trie  massacres  and  bloodshed,  which  had  contaminated 
earth  and  air,  confirmed  the  inspired  and  unstained  faith  of  the 
Nicene,  Constantinopolitan,  and  Ephesian  councils,  in  opposition 
to  Arianism,  Macedonianism,  and  Nestorianism.  The  Mediator, 
according  to  the  imperial  theology,  and,  in  agreement  with  the 
Chalcedonian  definition  without  mentioning  its  authority,  is 
consubstantial  with  God  in  His  deity,  and  with  man  in  His 
humanity ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  is  not  two,  but  one  incarnated 
God  the  Word.1  This  last  expression,  which,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed, is  a  little  suspicious,  has  given  great  offence  to  Baronius, 
Godeau,  and  Petavius,  with  a  shoal  of  other  Romish  critics  and 
theologians. 

But  the  conclusion  of  the  royal  manifesto  conveys  the  fright- 
fullest  sounds  of  terror  to  the  ear  of  superstition.  Zeno  spared 
Dioscorus  from  a  regard  to  the  Alexandrians  ;  but  anathema- 
tized all  who,  at  Chalcedon  or  elsewhere,  might  have  dissented 
from  the  imperial  confession.  His  Majesty,  though  a  layman, 
dared,  in  this  manner,  to  enact  a  formulary  of  faith,  and  excom- 
municate all  the  prelacy  who  dared  to  refuse  subscription. 

The  Henoticon  experienced  the  destiny  of  all  similar  attempts, 

1  Eva  fvyzavtw  XM  ov  5ro-  Evag.  III.  14.  Incarnato  uno  de  Trinitate  Deo 
Verbo.  Liberatus.  c.  18.  Alex.  10.  421.  Spend.  482.  iii. 


HENOTICON    OF    THE    EMPEROR    ZERO.  ^5 

and  only  augmented  the  evil  which  it  was  designed  to  remedy 
A  pacificator  is  seldom  a  favourite  with  man.  The  royal  edict, 
supported  by  imperial  power,  enjoyed,  however,  a  partial  and 
temporary  success,  and  was  signed  by  Acacius,  Mongos,  Fullo, 
and  indeed  by  all  possessed  of  moderation.  The  Byzantine 
patriarch  and  his  clergy  acknowledged  the  edict  of  pacification : 
and  all  those  who  had  professed  Monophysitism,  whether 
ecclesiastics  or  laymen,  were  received  into  communion.  The 
Alexandrian  patriarch  convened  a  general  assembly  of  the  clergy 
and  laity,  in  which  the  Henoticon  was  read  and  recognized. 
The  pastor,  then,  like  a  good  shepherd,  exhorted  the  flock, 
united  in  one  faith  and  baptism,  to  mutual  peace  and  charity. 
The  easterns,  Calendion  excepted,  followed  the  footsteps  of  the 
Byzantines  and  Alexandrians.  Fullo  of  Antioch  and  even 
Martyrias  of  Jerusalem,  famed  for  his  sanctity,  subscribed  the 
pacific  formulary  and  joined  in  reciprocal  communion.  The 
Henoticon,  in  this  manner,  was,  under  Anastasius  in  503,  wel- 
comed by  the  oriental  prelacy,  who,  to  a  man,  agreed  to  live 
in  forbearance  and  tranquillity. 

But  the  Henoticon  met  with  very  different  treatment  in  occi- 
dental Christendom.  The  west,  on  this  topic,  varied  from  the 
east.  Felix,  the  Roman  hierarch,  rejected  the  overture  of 
pacification  and  carried  every  thing  to  an  extremity.  Binius 
has  drawn  a  striking  picture  of  the  pontiff's  opposition.  His 
holiness  proscribed  and  execrated  the  Henoticon  of  the  most 
impious  Zeno,  who,  though  a  layman,  presumed  to  denounce 
the  council  of  Chalcedon,  enact  a  rule  of  faith,  prescribe  a  law 
to  the  church,  and,  stealing  the  keys  of  ecclesiastical  authority, 
hurl  the  anathemas  of  the  hierarchy  against  all  who  disclaimed 
his  usurpation  and  tyranny.1  The  edict  his  infallibility  de- 
nominated an  impiety  ;  and  he  pronounced  sentence  against  all 
who  subscribed  it.  The  western  clergy  as  well  as  laity,  seem, 
on  this  question,  to  have  joined  the  Roman  pontiff.  The 
western  hierarch,  in  this  manner,  engaged  in  hostility  against 
the  eastern  patriarchs,  and  the  Latin  against  the  Grecian 
clergy. 

The  critics  and  theologians  of  Romanism  differ  as  to  the  or- 
thodoxy of  the  Henoticon.  The  royal  manifesto  has  been  re- 
presented as  rank  heresy  by  an  array  of  popish  doctors  and 
critics,  such  as  Baronius,  Spondanus,  Bisciola,  Petavius,  Binius, 
Labbe,  Moreri,  Godeau,  and  Victor.  Baronius  characterizes 
the  Henoticon  as  a  tacit  repeal  of  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  and 

1  Proscripsit  et  execratus  est  impiissimi  Zenonis  Henoticon.  Hoc  impiissimuro 
sacrilegi  Imperatoris  edictum  impietatis  seminarium  nontantum  proscripsit,  verum 
etiam  subscribentes  anathematis  senteutia  condemnavit.  Bin.  3.  594.  Labb.  5. 
141.  Spon.  483.  III. 


336  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

in  this  is  followed  by  Spondanus,  Bisciola,  Petavius,  and  Mo- 
ren.  Binius,  quoted  and  approved  by  Labbe,  calls  the 
imperial  edict  of  pacification  an  impiety.  The  proclamation 
of  Zeno  put  Godeau  into  a  dreadful  passion.  The  impious 
edict,  says  this  historian,  not  only  anathematized  the  definition 
of  Chalcedon,  the  last  criterion  of  truth  ;  but  condemned  Euty- 
chianism  only  to  conceal  its  approbation  of  heresy.1 

This  array  of  doctors  has  been  confronted  by  others,  among 
whom  are  Asseman,  Pagius,  and  Alexander,  supported,  in  the 
rear  by  the  schoolmen.  These  acquit  the  Henoticon  of  heresy. 
Asseman  and  Pagius  represent  it  as  free  from  error,  while 
according  to  Alexander,  it  is  free  from  heresy  and  gives  no  sup- 
port to  Eutychianism.2  The  schoolmen,  with  all  their  subtlety 
and  distinctions,  could  find  no  blemish  in  this  celebrated  docu- 
ment. An  annotator  on  Evagrius  came  to  the  same  conclusion. 
Some,  in  this  manner,  accuse,  and  some  acquit  the  Henoticon 
of  heresy.  These,  therefore,  call  Catholicism,  what  those 
denominate  heresy.  The  ablest  theologian  of  the  papacy,  in 
this  way,  cannot  discriminate  between  truth  and  error,  and 
confound  Romanism  with  heterodoxy.  This  presents  an  odd 
specimen  of  unity,  and  a  strange  proof  of  the  immutability  of 
a  system. 

The  distracted  state  of  the  church,  under  Anastasius  in  491, 
has  been  depicted,  in  bold  language,  by  Evagrius  a  contempo- 
rary historian,  who  witnessed  the  scenes  which  he  has  described. 
The  representation,  in  part,  has  been  transcribed  by  Alexander.8 
All  Christendom,  in  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  was,  says 
Evagrius,  divided  into  diversified  and  jarring  factions.  One 
party  adhered,  with  the  utmost  pertinacity,  to  the  faith  of 
Chalcedon.  These  deprecated  the  alteration  of  a  single  sylla- 
ble or  even  a  single  letter  in  the  Chaicedonian  definition.  The 
opposing  faction,  on  the  contrary,  rejected  and  even  anathe- 
matized the  faith  of  Chalcedon.  One  class  patronized  the 
Henoticon  with  unshaken  obstinacy  and  resolution,  while 
another  execrated  that  edict  as  the  fountain  of  heresy.  The 
partizans  and  opponents  of  Zeno's  manifesto,  in  the  mean  time, 

1  Tacitam  immiscuit  abrogationem  concilii  Chalcedonensis.     Spon.  482.  III.     In 
eo  tacita  iuerat  concilii  Chalcedonensis  abrogatio.     Petav.  1.  330.     Get  edit  pro- 
non^oit   anatheme   centre   le   concile   de   Chalcedoine.     Moreri,   4.  77.     Omnes 
hseretici,  damnata  synodo  Chalcedonense,  efficerentur.     Bisciola,    423.     Get   edit 
impie  prononcjoit  anatheme  centre  le  concile  de  Chalcedoine,  qui  otoit  la  derniere 
regie  de  la  verite  orthodoxe.     Godeau,  3.  656.     Pour  cacher  1'approbation   de 
1'heresie.     Godeau,   3.    656.     Zeno,   per   Henoticum,   a  catholica    fide   recedit. 
Victor,  324. 

2  Henoticon   Zenonis   Eutychianam  haeresim  non   adstruere.     Alex.    10.   412. 
Assem.  I.  343.     Pagius,  2.  411. 

3  Alii  Zenonis  Henotico  mordicus  adhaerebant,  tametsi  de  una  aut  de  duabus  na- 
turis  inter  se  dissiderunt.    Alex.  10.  424.     Evag.  III.  30. 


DISTRACTED    STATE    OF    THE    CHURCH.  337 

Disagreed  about  the  unity  and  duality  of  our  Lord.  Some,  de- 
ceived by  the  ambiguity  of  the  imperial  confession,  ascribed 
two  natures  to  the  Son  of  God  and  others  only  one. 

The  several  factions,  amid  the  Eastern,  Western,  and  African 
dissensions,  refused  reciprocal  communion.  The  easterns 
would  not  communicate  with  the  westerns  or  Africans ;  and 
these  again  in  return,  rejected  the  communion  of  the  easterns. 
Dissension,  at  last,  advanced  even  to  a  greater  extremity.  The 
orientals,  among  themselves,  proceeded  to  mutual  division  and 
excommunication  :  while  the  Europeans  and  Africans  engaged 
in  similar  altercation  with  each  other  and  with  strangers.  Such 
was  the  state  of  the  Latins  and  Greeks  in  the  end  of  the  fifth 
century.  The  annals  of  the  reformation  present  no  scene  of 
equal  diversity  and  anathemas.  The  patrons  of  Protestantism 
have,  on  some  points,  differed,  but  never  anathematized. 
Execrations  of  this  kind,  the  protestant  leaves  to  the  papist,  as 
they  express  a  concentrated  malevolence  and  miscreancy, 
inconsistent  with  the  light  and  the  principles  of  the  reformation. 

The  popish  communion  through  eastern  and  western  Chris- 
tendom, exhibited,  in  this  manner,  a  ridiculous  and  disgusting 
diversity  on  the  subject  of  Monophysitism.  Emperors,  popes, 
and  councils  clashed  in  continued  anathemas  and  excommuni- 
cation. A  theory,  which  had  been  entertained  by  the  pontiffs 
Felix  and  Julius,  as  well  as  by  the  saints  Cyril,  Gregory, 
Athanasius,  and  Nazianzen,  was,  when  broached  by  a  monk  of 
Constantinople,  stigmatized  as  a  heresy.  A  Byzantine  council, 
amidst  curses  and  execrations,  deprived  its  advocate  of  the 
sacerdotal  dignity  and  ecclesiastical  communion.  The  Ephe- 
sian  council,  convened  by  Theodosius  and  containing  an 
hundred  and  fifty  of  the  eastern  prelacy,  reversed  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  decision,  cjeclared  the  alleged  heresiarch  ortho- 
dox, and  restored  him  to  communion  with  the  priesthood. 

The  general  council  of  Chalcedon  repealed  the  enactments 
of  Ephesus,  and  issued  three  jarring  creeds.  This  assembly, 
clothed  with  infallibility,  first  passed,  in  loud  acclaim,  the  famed 
Tome  of  Leo,  which  has  been  styled  the  column  of  orthodoxy. 
Its  second  confession,  which  was  clearly  the  faith  of  the  council, 
consisted  of  unqualified  monophysitism.  Its  definition,  at  last, 
which  was  forced  on  the  infallible  synod  by  Leo  and  Mar- 
ciari,  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor,  contained  the  faith,  which,  on 
account  of  its  final  triumph  and  establishment,  has  been  de- 
nominated Catholicism.  All  these  forms  of  belief,  the  holy 
unerring  council  adopted  in  deafening  yells  and  with  frightful 
and  reiterated  anathemas. 

Eastern  and  western  Christendom,  notwithstanding  the  defi- 
nition of  Chalcedon,  split  into  three  contending  factions. 

22 


338  THE    VARIATIONS    OP   POPERY. 

Emperors,  pontiffs,  clergy,  and  people  divided  in  favour  of 
Eutychianism,  the  Chalcedonian  faith,  or  Zeno's  Henoticon. 
The  emperors  Marcian,  Leo,  and  Justin  patronized  Catholicism. 
Zeno,  Basiliscus,  and  Anastasius,  in  the  general  opinion,  coun- 
tenanced heresy.  Leo  and  Felix,  Roman  pontiffs,  stamped  the 
definition  of  Chalcedon  with  the  broad  seal  of  their  infallibility. 
Vigilius  and  Martin  affixed  the  signature  of  their  inerrability 
to  monophysitism  and  the  simple  unity  of  Emmanuel.  The 
oriental  patriarchs,  Fullo,  Mongos,  and  JEluros  waged  a  spirit- 
ual war  against  Calendion,  Proterios,  and  Timothy,  while  the 
prelacy  and  populace  fought  in  the  ranks  of  their  respective 
leaders.  Latins  and  Greeks,  Europeans  and  Africans,  thun 
dered  mutual  excommunications  and  anathemas. 


CHAPTER  XL 


MONOTHELITISM. 

ITS  GENEKAL  RECEPTION — SUPPORTED  BY  THE  ROMAN  EMPEROR,  AND  BY  TWi 
A.NTIOCH1AN,  ALEXANDRIAN,  BYZANTINE,  AND  ROMAN  PATRIARCHS ITS  DEGRA- 
DATION FROM  CATHOLICISM  TO  HEREBY THE  ECTHESIS  OR  EXPOSITION THK 

EMPEROR    AND    THE    GREEKS    AGAINST    THE    POPE    AND    THE    LATINS THE  TYPE  OR 

FORMULARY SECOND    BATTLE    BETWEEN    THE    GREEKS    AND    THE  LATINS SECOND 

TRIUMPH    OF    MONOTHELITISM SIXTH    GENERAL    COUNCIL TOTAL    OVERTHROW    OF 

MONOTHELITI3M — ITS    PARTIAL    REVIVAL — ITS    UNIVERSAL    AND  FINAL  EXTINCTION. 

MONOTHELITISM  ascribed  only  one  will  and  one  operation  to 
the  Son  of  God.  This  will  or  volition,  according  to  this  system, 
proceeded,  not  from  the  humanity,  but  from  the  divinity.  The 
patrons  of  this  theology,  indeed,  disclaimed  monophysitism, 
admitted  the  Mediator's  Godhead  and  manhood,  and  attributed 
to  the  latter  both  action  and  passion,  such  as  volition,  motion, 
thirst,  hunger,  and  pain.  But  the  agency,  the  partizans  of  this 
system  referred  to  the  deity,  and  the  mere  instrumentality  to 
the  humanity,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  soul  actuates  the 
body.  Catholicism,  on  the  contrary,  as  established  by  the 
sixth  general  council,  rejected  this  unity,  and  maintained  the 
dogma  of  two  wills  and  operations.  One  volition,  in  this 
system,  belonged  to  the  deity  and  one  to  the  humanity.1  This 
metaphysical  distinction,  in  which,  however,  Catholicism  seems 
to  use  the  correctest  phraseology,  continued,  for  a  long  period, 
to  divide  Christendom,  and,  in  its  progress,  to  excite  dissension, 
animosity,  execration,  anathemas,  excommunications,  massacre, 
and  bloodshed. 

Alexander  traces  monothelitism  to  an  infernal  origin.  *  This 
heresy,'  says  the  historian,  *  burst  from  hell.'2  Its  earthly 
author,  however,  as  appears  from  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Dora,  m 
the  Lateran  council  under  Martin,  was  Theodorus  of  Pharan  in 
Palestina,  who  perhaps  according  to  Alexander,  came  from 
the  Tartarian  regions  or  had  a  commission  from  Satan.  This 
innovator  broached  his  shocking  impiety,  as  his  silly  meta- 

*  Theoph.  218.     Godea.  5.  128.     Alex.  13.  23.     Bin.  4,  577.  et  5.  6. 

•  Hjeresis  ex  inferis  erupit.     Alex.  13.  27.     Labb.  7.  106. 

22* 


340  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

physics  have  been  called,  about  the  year  620.  A  speculator, 
who  had  lived  in  obscurity,  fabricated  this  new  theory,  to 
employ  the  thoughts  or  awaken  the  animosity  of  emperors, 
popes,  and  councils. 

But  neither  the  obscurity  of  the  author  nor  the  alleged  blas- 
phemy of  the  system  prevented  its  circulation.  Heresy,  like 
pestilence,  is  contagious ;  and  Monothelitism  soon  obtained 
general  dissemination,  and,  by  its  universal  reception,  became 
entitled  to  assume  the  boasted  name  of  Catholicism.  Greeks 
and  Latins,  through  oriental  and  western  Christendom,  em- 
braced the  innovation,  which,  in  its  infancy,  was  patronized  by 
the  Roman  emperor,  and  by  the  Antiochian,  Alexandrian, 
Byzantine,  and  Roman  Patriarchs  arid  Clergy. 

The  emperor  Heraclius,  anxious  to  reconcile  the  Jacobites 
to  Catholicism,  and  influenced  by  the  opinions  of  Anastasius, 
Cyrus,  and  Sergius,  issued  an  edict  in  favour  of  Monothelitism. 
Depending  on  the  judgment  of  others,  and  conversant  with 
military  tactics  rather  than  with  Christian  theology,  the  royal 
warrior  lent  his  imperial  authority  in  support  of  heterodoxy. 
Godeau  accuses  Heraclius  of "*  abandoning  the  faith,  protecting 
a  heresy,  and  inflicting  a  mortal  wound  on  Catholicism.' 
*  Inimical  to  God  and  hardened  in  soul,  the  emperor,'  says 
Baronius,  *  published  his  exposition  to  establish  an  impiety.'1 

Anastasius,  Macedonius,  and  Macarius,  Patriarchs  of 
Antioch,  disseminated  the  Monothelitism,  which  was  patronized 
by  the  emperor  Heraclius.  Anastasius  or  Athanasius,  who  had 
supported  Jacobitism  as  well  as  Monothelitism,  was  promoted 
to  the  patriarchal  throne  by  the  emperor  in  630,  and  retained 
this  dignity  for  ten  years.  Macedonius,  his  successor  favoured 
the  same  theory.  Macarius,  who  was  deposed  in  the  sixth 
general  council,  maintained  this  error  with  the  utmost  obsti- 
nacy. The  suffragans  of  these  dignitaries  embraced  this 
system,  and  were  followed  by  the  laity  without  a  single  murmur 
of  opposition  or  animosity.2 

Cyrus  followed  the  example  of  Anastasius.  Promoted  to  the 
See  of  Alexandria,  this  Patriarch  in  633,  convened,  in  that  city, 
a  great  council,  which  decided  in  favour  of  one  will  and  opera- 
tion and  anathematized  all  who  dissented.  The  decision  was 
received  without  any  opposition  by  the  prelacy  as  well  as  the 
people  of  the  diocese.3  Monothelitism,  therefore,  became  me 
faith  of  the  Alexandrian  as  well  as  the  Antiochian  See. 

Sergius  concurred  with  Anastasius  and  Cyrus.  The  Byzan- 
tine Patriarch,  with  the  design  of  giving  more  weight  to  his 

1  Theoph.  -218.     Zonaras,  2.  6.     Godeau,  5.  161.     Spon.  639.  I. 

2  Theoph.  218.     Cedren.  1.  331.     Godeau,  5.  128.     Moreri,  1.  499. 

3  Cedren.  1.  332.     Bin.  5.  220.     Godeau,  5.  138.     Spon.  633.  II. 


MONOTHELITISM    SUPPORTED    BY   HONORIUS.  341 

decision,  assembled  also  a  council  of  his  suffragans ;  and  all 
these,  with  the  utmost  unanimity,  decided  in  favour  of  the 
same  speculation.  The  clergy  agreed  with  their  patriarch. 
Cyrus,  some  time  after,  wrote  a  flattering  letter  to  Sergius  :  and 
praised  the  Ecthesis  of  the  emperor  and  the  patriarch,  which, 
he  said,  '  was  clear  as  sun-beams/1 

Monothelitism,  in  this  manner,  became  the  faith  of  the 
Greeks.  The  harmony  of  the  eastern  clergy,  on  this  theory,  is 
stated  in  the  celebrated  Ecthesis  or  Exposition.  The  Oriental 
prelacy  received,  with  the  utmost  readiness,  a  form  of  belief, 
which  inculcated  the  dogma  of  one  will.  This  heresy,  Godeau 
admits,  '  was  maintained  by  the  emperor  and  the  three  oriental 
patriarchs,  poisoned  nearly  the  whole  of  eastern  Christendom, 
and  corrupted  the  prelacy  and  the  people.'  Godeau's  state- 
ment is  repeated  by  Bruys.  Maimbourg  attests  *  the  concord 
of  the  emperor  Heraclius,  and  the  patriarchs  Anastasius, 
Macarius,  Cyrus,  and  Sergius  in  behalf  of  this  error.'2 

Honorius,  the  Roman  pontiff,  next  declared  in  favour  of 
Monothelitism.  His  infallibility,  in  two  letters  written  in  reply 
to  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  expressed,  in  clear  and  unequivocal 
terms,  his  belief  of  one  will  in  the  Son  of  God,  and  his  un- 
qualified assent  to  the  decision  of  Sergius.  His  supremacy 
denied  that  any  of  the  fathers  had  taught  the  doctrine  of  two 
wills.  He  represented  the  question  concerning  the  operations, 
as  trifling  and  undecided  by  Scriptural  or  Synodal  authority. 
His  infallibility's  approbation  of  the  opinion,  embraced  by  the 
Byzantine  patriarch,  was  express,  and  caused  Honorius  to  be 
anathematised  with  Sergius  in  the  sixth  general  council,  as  the 
follower  of  that  chief  of  the  heresy.3 

The  pontiff's  letter,  on  this  occasion,  was  dogmatical :  and 
the  sixth  general  council  characterised  it  by  this  epithet.  His 
holiness,  says  Du  Pin,  '  spoke  in  this  production  from  the  chair, 
and  supported  the  Monothelan  error  by  a  decretal  definition.4 
His  bull  was  an  answer  to  the  Constantinopolitan  patriarch, 

1  Theoph.  219.     Labb.  7.  214.     Alex.  13.  32. 

2  Exceperunt  Patriarchis  sedibus  praesules,  et  gratanter  ei  consenserunt.     Labb. 
7.  202.     Qui  etoit  soustenue  par  1'Empereur,  et  les  trois   Patriarches   d'Orient. 
Presque  tout  1'Orient  en  ftit  empoisonne.     Les  Patriarches  et  les  prelats  etant  cor- 
rumpus,   corrornpoient  leurs  troupeaux.     Godeau,    5.    153,    166.     L'heresie   de» 
Moiiothelites  soustenue  par  presque  tout  1'Orient.     Bruy.  1.  423. 

Sergius  entreprit  de  repandre  cette  heresie  dans  tout  1'Orient.  II  avoit  pourlui, 
Cyrus,  Macaire,  et  Athanase.  II  entraina  ce  pauvre  Prince,  dans  cette  nouvelle 
neresie.  Maimb.  108. 

3  Uaam  voluntatem  fatemur  Domini.     Bin.  5.  203.     Labb.  7.  962.     Haec  nobis 
cum  Fraternitas  vestra  pradicat.  sicut  et  nos  ea  vobiscum  unanimiter  praedicamus. 
Labb.  7.  966. 

Sergio  et  Honorio  anathema.  Alexander,  13.  303.  In  omnibus  ejus  mentem 
secutus  eat.  Labb.  7  978.  Maimburg,  110. 

4  Moiiothelitarum  errorem  decretali  epistola  definivit.    Du  Pin,  349,  352.    Bray* 
1.  424.     Godeau,  5.  140.     Bellarmin,  ad  Clem.  8.     Gam.  in  Diurn. 


342  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

and  indeed  to  the  Byzantine  and  Alexandrian  councils,  to  whom 
he  prescribed  the  means,  which  he  thought  necessary  for  the 
unity  of  the  faith  and  the  preservation  of  Catholicism.  His 
letter  also  was  sanctioned  by  a  Roman  Synod.  The  pontiffs 
of  this  age,  Bellarmine  and  Gamier  have  shown,  issued  nothing 
of  this  kind  without  the  authority  of  a  council.  The  faith  of 
Honor! us  therefore  was,  like  that  of  Cyrus  and  Sergius,  recom 
mended  by  the  Synodal  sentence  of  the  Suffragan  clergy. 

The  only  opposition  to  Monothelitism  arose  from  Sophronius, 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  He  convened  a  council  in  633,  which 
condemned  this  system  and  decided  in  favour  of  two  wills. 
He  also  dispatched  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Dora,  at  the  head  of  a 
solemn  deputation  to  the  Roman  pontiff,  to  solicit  the  condem 
nation  of  the  Monothelan  theology,  as  inconsistent  with  the 
council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  faith  of  antiquity.  But  his 
infallibility  had  already  declared  for  the  unity  of  the  Mediator's 
will.  He  therefore  recommended  peace,  and  obliged  the 
deputation  to  promise,  in  name  of  their  patriarch,  to  forego  all 
discussion  on  this  difficult  question.  This  injunction,  which 
was  the  offspring  of  sound  wisdom  and  discretion,  and  which, 
had  it  been  always  afterward  observed,  would  have  prevented 
much  useless  discussion  and  unchristian  animosity,  was,  during 
the  life  of  Honorius,  faithfully  obeyed.  Sophronius,  as  well  as 
Cyrus  and  Sergius,  preserved,  on  this  subject,  a  profound 
silence  and  remained  in  inactivity.1 

During  the  five  years,  therefore,  which  elapsed  from  the 
deputation  of  Sophronius  to  Honorius  in  633,  till  the  death  of 
the  pontiff  in  638,  the  whole  Romish  communion,  Greeks  and 
Latins,  received,  by  silent  or  avowed  consent,  the  faith  of 
Monothelitism.  A  pontifical  decision,  admitted  by  the  clergy, 
constitutes,  according  to  Popish  theologians,  a  standard  of  faith. 
Such  at  the  Maynooth  examination,  was  the  statement  of  Grotty, 
Brown,  Slevin,  and  Higgins.*  Monothelitism,  on  this  supposi- 
tion, was,  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  transubstan- 
tiated into  Catholicism.  The  Greeks,  in  general,  avowed  their 
M<  mothelitism.  Sophroniu s  and  his  clergy,  who  at  first  resisted, 
concurred,  at  last,  in  accordance  with  the  advice  of  Honorius, 
in  tacit  acquiescence.  The  western  hierarch  and  episcopacy 
received  the  same  theology  without  the  faintest  murmur  of 
hostility.  The  pope  declared  in  its  favour,  and  the  clergy 
submitted  in  cordial  unanimity.  A  breath  of  discontent  was 
not  heard,  for  five  revolving  years,  through  all  the  wide  extent 
of  oriental  and  western  Christendom.  A  single  fact,  indicating 

1  Theoph.  218.  Cedren.  I.  331.  Zonaraa,  2.  «T.  Spon.  633.  III.  Labbeus, 
€.  1481. 

*  May.  Report,  78,  154,  253,  27-4. 


MONOTHELITISM    DECLARED    TO    BE    HERESY.  343 

a  disbelief  of  this  system,  from  the  publication  of  the  pontiff's 
letter  till  his  dissolution,  could  not  be  culled  from  all  the  maga- 
zines of  ecclesiastical  history  and  all  the  literary  monuments 
of  the  east  and  west.  The  Monothelan  theology,  therefore, 
embraced  by  the  clergy  of  the  papal  communion,  was,  by  this 
easy  and  simple  process,  transformed  into  genuine  Romanism. 
According  to  Godeau,  '  Heraclius  inflicted  a  mortal  wound  on 
the  church.'  The  Chalcedonian  council,  says  Theophanes, 
became,  on  this  occasion,  a  great  reproach,  *  and  the  CATHOLIC 
CHURCH  was  overthrown.'1 

Monothelitism,  however,  which,  in  the  Popedom  of  Hono- 
rius,  had  been  elevated  into  orthodoxy,  was,  in  the  vicissitude 
of  human  affairs  and  in  the  variations  of  the  Roman  faith, 
degraded  into  heresy.  This  theology,  expelled  from  the  throne 
of  Catholicism,  which  it  had  usurped,  was,  amid  sacerdotal 
and  imperial  anathemas,  consigned,  with  execration,  to  the 
empire  of  heterodoxy  and  perdition.  Its  legitimacy  was  dis- 
puted, and  its  dynasty,  amidst  clerical  imprecations  and  bal- 
derdash, was  overthrown.  A  revolution  of  this  kind,  however, 
was  not  effected  without  opposition  and  animosity. 

The  belligerents,  in  this  war  of  words,  were  the  Greeks  and 
the  Latins.  The  Pope  and  the  Latins  arrayed  themselves 
against  the  emperor  and  the  Greeks  :  and  each,  during  the 
campaign,  displayed  admirable  skill  in  ecclesiastical  tactics. 
Heraclius  or  Sergius  in  his  name  commenced  hostilities  in  639, 
by  the  publication  of  the  Ecthesis  or  Exposition  of  the  faith. 
This  celebrated  edict,  having  rejected  Arianism,  Nestorianism, 
and  Eutychianism,  proceeded,  in  express  terms,  to  teach  the 
unity  of  the  Mediator's  will  and  to  interdict  all  controversy  on 
the  operations.  The  unity  of  the  one  was  defined,  and  silence 
enjoined  on  the  other ;  Awhile  the  definition  and  interdiction 
were  followed  by  the  usual  volleys  of  anathemas.2  This 
exposition,  issued  by  the  emperor,  was  received  by  the  oriental 
patriarchs  and  prelacy. 

Monothelitism  and  the  Exposition,  approved,  in  this  manner, 
by  the  emperor  and  the  easterns,  were,  with  horror  and  execra- 
tion, condemned  by  the  pope  and  the  westerns.  Pope  John 
marshalled  his  episcopal  troops,  and,  at  their  head,  discharged 
his  spiritual  artillery  from  the  Vatican,  loaded  with  curses  and 
anathemas  against  the  Monothelan  aruy  of  the  east.  His 
synodal  battery  was  pointed  against  Monothelitism  and  the 
Exposition.  Monothelitism,  John  in  his  synod  declared  to  be 

i  Heraclius  fit  une  playe  mortelle  a  1'Bglise.     Godeau,  5.  161.     Etj  peya  ovttios 
fiovvo&o$    Xo>,%»f8 ovoj,  xai>  rt  xaOoKixrj  Fxxityvia,  rttpifrttat.     Theop.  218. 
•  Zonams.  2.  69.     Labb.  6.  1503,  et  7.  206.     Bin.  4.  696.     Alex.  13.  31. 


*Ji4  vY*flt***THE     VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

contrary  to  the  faith,  the  fathers,  and  the  council  of  Chalcedon.1 
The  silence  enjoined,  as  well  as  the  unity  of  will  taught  in  the 
Ecthesis,  offended  the  pontiff  and  his  clergy.  Ecclesiastics, 
in  ail  ages,  seern  to  have  challenged  verbal  contention  as  their 
inalienable  prerogative ;  and  this,  at  that  period,  appears  to  have 
been  their  ruling  passion.  The  emperor's  interdict,  therefore, 
these  noisy  polemics  deprecated  as  an  invasion  of  their  rights, 
and  as  treason  against  the  church  and  their  freedom. 

The  African  clergy  also  declared,  with  distinguished  zeal 
against   Monothelitism.     Colombas,  Stephen,   and   Raparatus 
metropolitans  of  Numidia,  Byzaca,  and  Mauritania,  anathema- 
tized the  heresy  of  one  will  in  their  respective  councils  ;  and 
sent  letters  to  the   same  effect  addressed  to  the  emperor,  the 
pope,  and  the  Byzantine  patriarch.     Victor  also,  the  Cartha- 
ginian bishop,  despatched  Melosus,  with  a  solemn  embassy  to 
the  Roman  hierarch,  declaring  his  promotion,  his  attachment 
to  the  faith  of  antiquity,  and  his  detestation  of  the  heresy  of 
Monothelitism.2 

All  this  apparatus  of  edicts,  councils,  imprecations,  anathe- 
mas, and  excommunications,  however,  produced  no  decisive 
effect.  The  Greeks  and  the  Latins,  the  partizans  of  orthodoxy 
and  heterodoxy,  held  their  several  systems  with  unyielding 
pertinacity.  The  authority  of  the  emperor  and  the  pope,  on 
this  occasion,  was  divided.  The  emperor,  when  he  exerted 
his  influence,  could  always  command  a  majority,  and  often 
the  whole  of  the  clergy.  The  emperor  and  pope,  when  united, 
could  always  effect  unanimity  of  profession  among  the  conscien- 
tious bishops.  But  Heraclius  and  John,  on  this  occasion,  pat- 
ronized two  contending  factions  ;  and  his  majesty,  besides,  was 
not  determined.  He  had  been  entrapped  into  Monothelitism 
by  Anastasius,  Cyrus,  and  Sergius,  in  the  full  confidence  of  its 
orthodoxy.  But  the  declaration  of  the  Latins  awakened  doubts 
in  his  mind  ;  and  he  remained,  therefore,  in  suspense  and 
inactivity,  The  balance  of  victory,  in  consequence,  was  sus- 
pended in  equilibrium ;  and  the  holy  Fathers,  both  of  the  East 
and  West,  expended  their  curses  and  their  excommunications 
for  nothing. 

The  former  battle  being  indecisive,  the  Greeks  and  Latins 
prepared  again  for  action.  The  Greeks  indeed,  though  headed 
by  the  emperor,  being  weary  of  war,  appear,  on  this  occasion, 
to  have  been  inclined  to  peace.  But  the  Latins  rejected  all 
cessation  of  arms-  The  organs  of  combativeness,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Spurzheim  and  phrenology,  must  have  been  well 

»  Theoph.  219.     Cedren. 2.  332.     Petav.  2.  138.     Maimb.  111.     Labb.  (I.  1502. 
Bin.  4.  734. 
»  Cedren.  2.  332      Theoph.  219.     Bruy.  1.  440.     Petavius,  1.  379. 


THE    TYPE    OR   FORMULARY   OF    CONST ANS.  345 

developed  in  the  Western  clergy.  Their  pugnacity,  after  six 
teen  years  war,  with  some  intervals,  had  suffered  no  diminution 
notwithstanding  the  seventy  of  the  former  campaign. 

The  emperor  Constans,  pretending  to  inspiration,  issued,  in 
648,  a  pacific  overture,  which  he  styled  the  Type  or  Formulary. 
This  edict,  suggested  by  Paul  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  having, 
with  great  perspicuity  and  without  any  partiality,  explained 
the  opinions  on  the  subject  of  contention,  and  expressed  deep 
regret  for  the  unhallowed  divisions  of  the  Christian  community, 
interdicted  all  disputation  on  the  contested  topics  of  the  will 
and  operations.  All  discussion  of  these  metaphysical  and 
difficult  questions  was  forbidden  each  party,  on  pain  of  Divine 
judgment  and  imperial  indignation.  The  clergy  who  should 
offend  against  the  edict  of  pacification  were  to  be  degraded, 
the  monks  excommunicated,  and  the  nobility  deprived  of  their 
rank  and  property.  The  Type  differed  from  the  Ecthesis. 
The  Ecthesis  defined  the  unity  of  the  will,  and  enjoined  silence 
only  on  the  operations.  The  Type  defined  nothing,  and  pro- 
hibited all  controversy  on  both  these  subjects.  The  Greeks 
acquiesced  in  the  manifesto  of  pacification,  and  submitted, 
with  willingness,  to  the  imperial  authority.1 

But  the  Latins,  headed  by  the  pope  and  disinclined  to  peace, 
commenced  immediate  hostilities ;  and,  from  the  secretary  of 
the  Lateran,  hurled  anathemas  from  their  spiritual  engines 
against  the  impiety  of  the  Ecthesis,  the  atrocity  of  the  Type, 
and  the  heresy  of  Monothelitism.  Pope  Martin  led  the  charge 
against  the  emperor  and  the  Greeks.  Full  of  zeal  for  the 
faith,  or  rather  actuated  with  the  spirit  of  faction,  this  pontiff, 
in  649,  assembled,  in  the  Lateran,  no  less  than  150  bishops 
collected  from  Italy  and  the  adjacent  islands.  This  assembly, 
more  numerous  than  some,  general  councils,  fulminated  execra- 
tions against  Monothelitism  and  the  most  wicked  Type,  which 
was  published  by  Constans,  and  calculated  to  restrain  men 
from  professing  the  truth  or  combating  error.  The  sacred 
synod  also  thundered  imprecations,  with  great  spirit  and  devo- 
tion, against  Theodorus,  Cyrus,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  all 
who  entertained  their  heretical  impiety.2 

This  campaign,  like  the  former,  was  indecisive.  Constans 
showed  no  partiality  to  Monothelitism  or  to  Catholicism  ;  br.t 
maintained,  on  the  contrary,  an  armed  neutrality.  His  only 
design  seems  to  have  been  the  promotion  of  peace,  and  the 
extinction  of  faction  and  animosity.  Caliopas,  therefore, 

1  Labb.  7.  239.     Alex.  13.  35.     Bruys,  1.  441. 

3  Typo  Constants  Imperatoris  damnato,  Monothelitarnm  haeresim,  ejnsqua 
anctores  et  promotores  diris  multavit.  Mabillon.  1.  407.  Maiinburg,  111.  Crabb. 
2.  232.  Platina,  in  Martin.  Theoph.  219. 


346  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

Exarch  of  Italy,  seized  Martin  by  the  emperor's  orders,  and 
confined  this  disturber  of  the  peace  a  whole  year  in  Naxos,  an 
island  in  the  Archipelago  or  Egean  Sea.  He  was  then,  after  a 
mock  trial  and  the  utmost  cruelty,  banished  to  Cherson,  where 
he  died.1  He  suffered  with  great  fortitude  and  patience,  and, 
in  consequence,  has,  in  the  Roman  communion,  obtained  the 
honours  of  saintship  and  martyrdom. 

Martin's  punishment  tamed  the  haughty  insolence  of  his 
successors  Eugenius  and  Vitalian,  and  taught  these  pontiffs  to 
respect  the  imperial  authority.  These  took  special  care  not  to 
imitate  their  predecessors,  John  and  Martin,  in  condemning  the 
Type;  but,  on  the  contrary,  maintained,  during  their  spiritual 
reigns,  a  suspicious  and  provoking  silence  and  neutrality.  The 
red-hot  anathemas,  such  as  John  and  Martin  had  thundered 
from  the  Vatican  against  all  the  patrons  of  the  Ecthesis,  the 
Type,  and  Monothelitism,  got  time  to  cool,  and  the  church 
and  empire  in  consequence  enjoyed  a  temporary  peace. 

Eugenius  and  Vitalian,  it  has  been  alleged,  conferred  their 
formal  sanction  on  the  emperor's  pacific  formulary.  This  has 
been  inferred  from  the  friendship  which  Constans  discovered 
for  these  two  pontiffs.  His  majesty  enlarged  the  privileges  of 
the  Roman  See.  He  sent  Vitalian  a  copy  of  the  Gospels,  orna- 
mented with  gold  and  jewels  of  extraordinary  magnitude  and 
brilliancy.  But  the  Sovereign,  who  wreaked  such  vengeance 
on  Martin  for  condemning  the  Type,  would  not,  in  so  distin- 
guished a  manner,  have  countenanced  Vitalian  in  the  same 
offence.2  Eugenius  and  Vitalian,  therefore,  if  they  withheld 
their  avowed  approbation  of  the  Edict,  suspended  their  open 
condemnation. 

This  neutrality  was  a  virtual,  if  not  a  formal  submission  to 
the  formulary,  which  was  issued  merely  to  prevent  discussion 
and  animosity.  The  Type  interdicted  controversy,  and  this 
interdiction,  these  pontiffs  obeyed.  This  taciturnity,  which  was 
execrated  by  Martin,  was  a  direct  compliance  with  the  requisi- 
tions of  Constans.  Eugenius  and  Vitalian  sanctioned,  by  their 
cessation  of  hostility,  what  Theodorus  and  Martin  in  two  Roman 
councils,  had  denounced  as  heresy  inimical  to  Catholicism.3 
Christendom,  for  a  second  time,  saw  all  opposition  to  Monothe- 
litism entirely  abandoned,  and  his  infallibility,  'the  universal 
bishop,  the  head  of  the  church,  and  the  father  and  teacher  of 
all  Christians,5  with  all  his  Western  suffragans,  resting,  for  a 

1  Cedren.  2.  332.     Bniy.  1.  461.     Beda,  30. 

»  Brays.  1.  463.     Lubbens,  7.  457.     Beda,  Chron.  Ann.  671. 

*  Theodorus  Papa,  coucilio  congregate,  eundem  typum  damnavit.  Binius,  4 
572.  Vfvofttvov'  -  •  Ka.ro,  *«$  fxxtojtfiaf  dof/3fcrratov  rvrtav.  Labbeue  7.  365 
Expnsuit  Typum  adversus  Catholicam  fidem.  Beda,  30. ' 


THE    SIXTH   GENERAL   COUNCIL   CONVENED.  347 

long  series  of  years,  in  connivance  and  inactivity.  This  was 
plainly  the  second  triumph  of  Monothelitism.  The  Monothelan 
theology,  if  a  total  cessation  of  all  opposition 'to  a  doctrine  con- 
stitutes it  an  article  of  faith,  was,  for  the  second  time,  raised  to 
the  throne  of  orthodoxy  and  Catholicism. 

Monothelitism,  however,  enjoyed  only  a  precarious  and  tem- 
porary reign.  The  era  of  its  dethronement  had  nearly  made 
its  appearance  on  the  broad  theatre  of  the  world.  A  revolution, 
which  had  taken  place  in  the  imperial  mind,  portended  its  speedy 
overthrow  and  dissolution.  The  emperor  Constant! ne,  a  de- 
scendant of  Heraclius,  and  educated  in  the  Monothelite  system, 
induced  by  reason,  caprice,  interest,  passion,  whim,  fancy, 
inclination,  or  some  of  these  diversified  motives  which  actuate 
the  human  mind,  abjured  the  catechism  of  his  infancy,  and 
embraced  the  theology  which  he  afterward  raised  to  the  throne 
of  orthodoxy.  '  His  majesty,  the  warm  friend  of  Catholicism,' 
says  Binius, '  hastened  to  expunge  the  domestic  and  hereditary 
stain  of  his  family.'  The  royal  convert  concluded  pacific 
negotiations  with  the  Saracens,  and  formed  a  treaty  with  the 
pope  for  the  destruction  of  Monothelitism :  and  when  his 
majesty  and  his  holiness  united  against  this  or  any  other  creed, 
the  spirit  of  prophecy  was  unnecessary  to  anticipate  its  doom. 
The  royal  smiles  and  frowns,  seconded  by  pontifical  influence, 
always  conveyed  instant  conviction  to  episcopal  consciences, 
and  reduced  jarring  systems  to  unanimity. 

Constantino,  anxious  to  allay  ecclesiastical  discord,  summoned 
for  this  end  a  general  council,  which  met  at  Constantinople  in 
the  year  680.  The  bishops  of  this  assembly,  in  its  first  session, 
did  not  exceed  forty,  though  in  the  end,  they  amounted  to  166. 
The  emperor,  attended  by  the  counsellors  of  state,  presided, 
and,  in  the  acts  of  the  synod,  they  are  styled  the  judges.  These 
prescribed  the  subjects,  ruled  the  discussions,  collected  the 
suffrages,  and  indeed  conducted  the  whole  machinery  of  the 
council.  Their  partiality  appeared  in  the  first  session.  Maca- 
rius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  and  the  representatives  of  the  Roman 
pontiff,  had  disputed  about  a  quotation  from  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria. This,  though  couched  in  the  language  of  metaphysical 
jargon  and  unqualified  nonsense,  equally  unintelligible  and 
senseless,  the  judges  decided  in  favour  of  the  party  which  was 
now,  in  consequence  of  imperial  patronage,  to  become  orthodox.1 

The  acts  of  the  sixth  general  council  were  distinguished  by 
the  speedy  proselytism  of  the  Greeks,  the  condemnation  of 
Macarius  and  Honorius,  and  the  synodal  decision  against 
Monothelitism.  Georgius  of  Constantinople  was  the  first  who, 

i  Alexander,  13.  47.     Maimbourg,  112.     Labbeus,7.  635. 


348         %  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

changed  by  a  hasty  conversion,  recanted  his  former  opinion, 
and  anathematized  the  dogma  of  one  will  and  operation.  The 
logic  of  imperial  favour,  in  an  instant,  flashed  conviction  on  his 
mind.  The  arguments  of  the  monarch  bore,  no  doubt,  the 
imperial  stamp,  and  therefore  possessed,  beyond  question,  a 
sterling  value.  His  conversion  was  immediately  followed  by 
that  of  all  his  suffragans.  These,  imitating  their  superior,  and 
sensible  to  the  dialectics  of  their  sovereign,  cursed,  in  loud 
vociferation,  all  the  patrons  of  Monothelitism.1 

But  Macarius,  the  Antiochian  patriarch,  was  formed  of  less 
yielding  materials.  He  publicly  declared  in  the  eighth  session, 
that  he  would  not  retract,  though,  on  account  of  his  obstinacy, 
he  should  be  torn  into  fragments,  and  hurled  headlong  into  the 
sea.  This  shocking  blasphemy  awakened  all  the  zeal  of  the 
pious  bishops,  who,  in  consequence,  roared  out,  *  Cursed  be  the 
new  Dioscorus.  Put  out  the  new  Dioscorus.  Cursed  be  the 
new  Apollinaris.  Strip  him  of  his  pall.'  The  sacred  synod 
and  Roman  sovereign  then  commanded  the  pall  to  be  torn  off 
Macarius.  Basil  the  Cretan,  then  leaped  up,  seized  the 
unhappy  patriarch,  rent  the  pall  from  his  shoulders  ;  and, 
while  the  council  continued  cursing,  expelled  the  heretic  and 
his  throne,  by  sheer  violence,  out  of  the  assembly.  The  Roman 
clergy  next  caught  Stephen,  the  abettor  of  Macarius,  by  the 
shoulders,  and  threw  him,  amidst  direful  execrations,  out  of  the 
sacred  synod.2  The  holy  fathers,  on  the  occasion,  had  no 
mercy  on  Macarius,  Stephen,  or  their  own  lungs  :  and  had  it 
not  been  for  their  facility  of  cursing,  acquired  by  long  habit, 
must  have  cursed  themselves  out  of  breath. 

The  condemnation  of  his  infallibility  pope  Honorius,  for 
heresy,  formed  the  most  extraordinary  act  of  the  sixth  general 
council.  This  pontiff  had  sunk  into  the  cold  tomb,  and  his 
bones,  during  a  period  of  half  a  century,  had  been  mouldering 
in  the  dust.  But  death,  the  coffin,  the  shroud,  and  the  grave 
could  not  shield  his  memory  from  the  holy  church's  anathemas, 
which  were  pronounced  with  perfect  unanimity,  and  without 
the  least  opposition  or  faintest  murmur  of  mercy.3 

The  council,  in  the  thirteenth  session,  having  condemned  the 
dogmatic  letters  of  Honorius  as  conformed  to  heresy,  and  con- 
trary to  Catholicism  and  the  faith  of  the  Apostles  and  the 

1  Binius,  5.  88.     Alexander,  13.  50. 

2  Sancta  synodus,  una  cum  principe  ejus  orarium  auferri  jusserunt  a  collo  ejus, 
et  exiliens  Basilius  episcopus  Cretensis  ecclesiac,  ejus  orarium  abstulit,  et  anathe- 
matizantes  projecerunt  eum  foris  synodum,  simulque  et  Thronum  ejus.     Stephanum 
autem  discipulum  ejus  cervicibus  a  sancta  synodo   clerici   Roman!   ejicientes   ex- 
pulemnt.     Anastasius,  30.     Labbeus,  7.  590.     Bin.   5.  92.  365.     Crabb.  2.   319, 
321.     Caranza,  421.     Alex.  13,  52. 

3  Honorio  ab  Orientalibus  post  mortem  anathema  sit  dictum.     Caranza,  522. 


ACTS    OF    THE    GENERAL    COUNCILS.  349 

Fathers,  anathematized  their  pontifical  author  in  company  with 
Theodorus,  Cyrus,  and  Sergius.  Honorius  was  represented  as 
agreeing,  in  every  respect,  with  Sergius,  whose  impiety  the 
pontiff  confirmed.  The  sacred  synod,  in  its  sixteenth  session, 
repeated  these  anathemas  against  the  heretical  Honorius  and. 
his  companions.  Having,  in  the  eighteenth  session,  condemned 
Monothelitism,  and  issued  their  definition  of  two  wills  and 
operations  in  Emmanuel,  the  holy  Fathers  again  anathematized 
Theodorus,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  Cyrus,  Macarius,  and 
Honorius.1 

The  unerring  council,  in  its  eighteenth  session,  among  other 
compliments,  represented  his  holiness,  in  company  with  Theo- 
dorus, Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Cyrus,  and  Paul,  a.s  an  organ  of  the 
devil,  who  had  used  the  pontiff,  like  the  serpent,  in  bringing 
death  on  man  in  the  dissemination  of  scandal  and  heresy.2  His 
supremacy,  it  seems,  occupied  two  important  situations.  He 
was  the  organ  of  Satan  and  the  viceroy  of  God.  Clothed  with 
infallibility,  the  Byzantine  council  proclaimed  his  agency,  as  a 
Monothelite,  in  the  dynasty  of  his  infernal  majesty.  Vested  in 
like  manner  with  infallibility,  the  Florentian  and  Lateran  coun- 
cils defined  his  holiness,  as  pontiff,  the  vicar-general  of  the 
supernal  Emmanuel.  Honorius,  in  this  way,  was  promoted  to 
the  premiership  of  both  heaven  and  hell,  and,  with  characteris- 
tic ability,  conducted  the  administration  of  the  two  dominions. 
He  presided,  like  all  other  popes,  in  the  kingdom  of  Jesus,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  by  special  favour  in  the  empire  of  Belzebub. 

The  anathemas  of  the  Byzantine  assembly  were  repeated 
by  the  seventh  and  eighth  general  councils.  The  seventh,  in 
its  third  session,  anathematized  and  execrated  Cyru^,  Sergius, 
Pyrrhus,  and  Honorius,  and,  in  its  seventh  session,  uttered  a 
similar  denunciation.  The  eighth,  in  its  tenth  ses&ion,  also 
pronounced  anathemas  against  Honorius,  Cyrus,  Stephen,  arid 
Macarius.3 

Condemned  by  these  general  councils,  Honorius  was  also 
denounced  by  six  Roman  pontiffs  and  by  the  old  Roman  bre- 
viary. He  was  anathematized  for  heresy,  by  Agatho,  Nicholas, 
two  Leos,  and  two  Adrians,  on  a  question,  says  Caron,  not  of 
fact,  but  of  faith.  Agatho,  says  Caranza,  excommunicated  the 
heretics  Honorius,  Macarius,  Stephen,  and  Cyrus.  Leo  the 
Second  and  four  of  his  successors  confirmed  the  sixth,  seventh, 

1  Sequi  falsas  doctrinas  haereticorum.     In  omnibus  ejus  raentem  secutus  est,  et 
impia  dogmata  confirmavit.     Labb.  7.  978.     Honorio  haeretico  anathema.     Labb. 
7.  1043.     Du  Pin,  350.     Mahnb.  113. 

2  Orjjana  ad  propriam   sui   voluntatem   apta   reperiens,    Theodorum,   Sergium, 
Fyrrhum,  Paulum,  inauper  etHonorium.     Labb.   7.    1058.     Alexander,    13.    303 
Bin.  7.  854.  et  9.  151.     Crabb.  3.  476,  694,     Du  Pin,  349. 

3  Bin.  5.  819.  et  6.  844.     Crabb,  2.  403. 


350  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

and  eighth  general  councils,  that  had  condemned  and  anathe- 
matized Honorius.  Leo,  in  his  confirmation  of  the  Byzantine 
council,  characterized  Honorius  as  a  traitor  to  the  holy  apostolic 
faith.  The  old  Roman  breviary  also,  approved  by  the  Roman 
pontiffs  and  used  in  the  Romish  worship,  attested  the  condem- 
nation of  Cyrus,  Sergius,  and  Honorius  for  the  error  of 
Monothelitism.1 

The  decisions  and  anathemas  of  these  councils  and  pontiffs 
have,  in  modern  times,  distracted  the  friends  of  the  papacy. 
One  party,  in  the  face  of  this  overwhelming  evidence,  main- 
tain the  hierarch's  orthodoxy,  while,  another,  in  the  exercise  of 
common  sense  and  candour,  confess  his  heresy.  Baronius, 
Bellarmine,  and  Binius,  in  the  genuine  spirit  of  Ultramontane 
servility,  assert  his  Catholicism.  Binius  represents  Honorius, 
as  free  from  every  stain  or  suspicion  of  error.  The  means, 
which  this  faction  employ  in  his  vindication,  are  extraordinary. 
One  party,  in  this  faction,  such  as  Baronius,  Bellarmine, 
Pighius,  and  Binius,  represent  the  synodal  acts  of  the  sixth 
universal  synod  as  corrupted,  and  the  name  of  Honorius 
inserted  in  the  place  of  Theodorus.  This  hopeful  solution 
prevailed  for  some  time  ;  but  is  now  the  object  of  scorn  and 
contempt.  The  silly  conjecture  had  its  day  ;  but  has  passed  to 
oblivion  with  many  other  variations  of  popery.  The  Shandian 
supposition  has  been  demolished  by  the  overwhelming  argu- 
ments and  criticisms  of  Du  Pin,  Alexander,  Godeau,  Launoy, 
and  Maimbourg.3 

Another  party  in  this  faction,  among  whom  were  Turre- 
crema,  Pallavicino,  Spond-mus,  and  Arsdekin,  admit  the 
genuineness  of  the  acts ;  but  allege  an  error  in  the  council. 
The  condemnation  of  Honorius,  according  to  these  critics,  was 
a  question,  not  of  faith,  but  of  fact,  in  which,  even  a  general 
council  may  err.  Popes  and  councils,  according  to  these  vin- 
dicators, condemned  Honorius ;  but,  in  their  sentence,  were 
mistaken.  The  modest  critics  weigh  their  own  opinion,  though 
void  of  all  evidence,  against  the  decision  of  pontiffs,  councils, 
and  all  antiquity.3  His  infallibility's  vindicators,  in  their  noble 
enterprize,  have  displayed  a  tissue  of  sophistry,  quibbling, 
misrepresentation,  distinctions,  nonsense,  shuffling,  evasion, 
and  chicanery,  unrivalled  in  the  annals  of  controversy. 

1  Novimus  Honorinm  Papam,  tanquam  haereticum  Monotbelitam   a   3  synodii 
generalihus,  VI,  VII,  VIII.  sicut  et  a  4   Pontificibus   Romania,   Leone,  Ajrithone, 
duobns  Adrianis  damnatnra  esse.     Caron.  81).  418.     Alex.    13    311.     Main-bourg, 
11.     Proditione  immaculatam  fiMem  subvertere  conatus  est.     Labb.  7.  1155.  et  8. 
652.     Bin.  5.  307.     Moreri,  4.  186. 

2  Rnon.  681.  V.  Bell.  IV    11.     Bin.  4.  572.     Maimb.  116.  Du  Pin,  350.     Alex. 
13.  30-2.     Godean.  5.  339.     Launoy,  1.  118. 

3  Turrecrema,  II.  92.     Pallav.  VII.  4.     Aredek.  1.  127.     Bell.  IV.   11.     Maim- 
bourg, 120. 


TEMPORARY   REVIVAL   OF    MONOTHELITISM.  351 

A  second  party,  among  whom  may  be  reckoned  Marca, 
Garner,  Pagius,  Alexander,  Godeau,  Moreri,  Launoy,  Bruys, 
Maimbourg,  Caron,  Canus,  Beda,  and  Du  Pin,  confess  the 
justice  of  the  pontiff's  sentence.  This  party  again  is  divided 
into  two  factions.  One  of  these,  supported  by  the  authority 
of  Marca,  Garner,  Pagius,  Alexander,  Godeau,  and  Moreri, 
represent  Honorius  merely  as  guilty  of  remissness  and  inac- 
tivity, in  neglecting  to  suppress  the  rising  heresy  of  Monothe- 
litism.  Launoy,  Bruys,  Caron,  Canus,  Beda,  Maimbourg,  and 
Du  Pin  have  characterized  Honorius  as  guilty  of  heresy,  and 
have  evinced  their  allegation  by  a  mass  of  evidence  which 
must  command  the  assent  of  every  unprejudiced  mind.1 

Monothelitism,  by  the  decision  of  the  Byzantine  council, 
received  a  total  overthrow.  The  Greeks  and  Latins,  through 
the  oriental  and  western  empire,  acknowledged,  by  open  or 
tacit  consent,  the  definition  of  the  Constantinopolitan  assembly. 
The  theology  of  one  will  and  operation,  seemed,  for  a  lapse 
of  about  thirty-two  years,  to  be  extinguished. 

The  Monothelan  theory,  however,  was  destined  to  enjoy  a 
temporary  revival,  in  the  reign  of  Philippicus.  Justinian,  dis- 
tinguished by  his  cruelty,  was  assassinated  in  the  year  712, 
and  Philippicus  raised  to  the  throne.  His  elevation  to  the  impe- 
rial dignity,  Binius  ascribes  to  the  devil  and  a  blind  magician. 
The  usurper,  says  Theophanes,  had  been  educated  by  Stephen, 
a  Monothelite,  and  a  pupil  of  Macarius  the  Antiochan  patriarch, 
and  had,  from  his  infancy,  imbibed  the  principles  of  his  tutor. 
The  magician,  who,  though  blind  in  mind  and  body,  was,  it 
seems,  skilled  in  astrology,  foretold  the  promotion  of  Philippi- 
cus, and,  should  he  patronize  Monothelitism,  the  prosperity  of 
his  reign.  The  prophet,  however,  in  this  latter  circumstance, 
happened  to  be  mistaken.  The  stars  had  been  unfaithful,  or 
the  sage  astrologer  had  miscalculated.  Philippicus,  however, 
believing  the  impostor's  prediction,  bound  himself  by  oath  to 
the  conditions.2 

Vested  with  the  sovereign  authority,  the  emperor  convened  a 
council  in  Constantinople,  for  the  purpose  of  overturning 
Catholicism  and  substituting  Monothelitism.  This  assembly, 
which  Theophanes  calls  *a  mad  synod,'  was,  says  Binius, 
attended  by  numberless  oriental  bishops,  who,  according  to  the 
same  author,  were,  at  the  emperor's  suggestion,  converted,  in 
a  moment,  from  orthodoxy  to  heresy.  The  proselytism,  on 
this  occasion,  was  somewhat  sudden ;  but  nothing  extraordi- 
nary. The  prelacy  of  these  days  possessed  an  admirable 

J  Alex.  13.  320.     Godeau,  5.  140.     Moreri,  4.  186.     Launoy,   1.   118.     Bruy,  1. 
42:j.     Caron.  89.     Canus,  V.  5.     Beda,  31.     Maimb.  113.     Du  Pin,  350. 
*  Cedren.  1   ?53.     Theoph.  254.     Bin.  5.  447. 


352  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

versatility  of  belief  and  elasticity  of  conscience ,  and  could 
generally  conform,  with  accommodating  and  obliging  facility, 
to  the  faith  of  the  emperor.  Many  of  these  holy  lathers,  who, 
on  this  occasion,  embraced  the  imperial  religion,  had,  under 
Constantine,  supported  Catholicism,  and,  again,  under  Anasta- 
sius,  who  succeeded  Phillippicus,  returned,  with  equal  ease,  to 
orthodoxy.  The  sacred  synod,  therefore,  at  the  nod  of  the 
emperor  and  with  the  utmost  unanimity,  condemned  the  sixth 
general  council,  consigned  its  acts  to  the  flames,  and  declared 
the  theology  of  one  will,  which  many  of  them  had  formerly 
anathematized,  the  true  faith  of  antiquity.  John,  whom 
Philippicus  substituted  for  Cyrus  in  the  See  of  Constantinople, 
poisoned,  according  to  Godeau,  all  the  Greeks  with  heresy. 
The  Eastern  clergy  abandoned  the  faith  rather  than  their 
dignity.  The  Byzantine  conventicle,  whose  atrocious  acts, 
full  of  blasphemy,  are,  says  Labbeus,  buried  with  the  wicked 
emperor  and  consigned  to  eternal  anathemas,  renewed  the 
impiety  of  Monothelitism.1 

Philippicus,  who  was  a  man  of  learning,  having,  on  the  dis- 
missal of  the  council,  compiled  a  confession  agreea.ble  to  its 
definition,  transmitted  it  to  the  several  metropolitans,  and 
enjoined  it  on  the  clergy  on  pain  of  deposition  and  banishment. 
A  few,  unwilling  to  make  the  imperial  faith  and  conscience  the 
standard  of  their  own,  remonstrated.  But  these  refractory 
spirits  were  soon  removed,  and  others  of  greater  pliancy  were 
substituted.  Monothelitism,  in  consequence,  was  again  em- 
braced by  all  the  Greeks,  and  even  by  the  envoys  of  the  apos- 
tolic see,  who,  at  that  time,  resided  in  the  imperial  city. 

The  Latins,  however,  were,  for  once,  less  passive  or  com- 
plying. The  emperor's  power  in  the  west  had  become  less 
arbitrary  than  in  the  east.  The  Roman  city,  in  which  the 
imperial  authority  had  been  reduced  to  a  low  ebb,  was,  in  a 
great  measure,  governed  by  the  Roman  pontiff.  The  pope, 
therefore,  rejected  the  imperial  confession  with  indignation,  and 
condemned  it,  in  council,  as  fraught  with  blasphemy,  dictated 
oy  the  enemy  of  truth,  and  calculated  to  sap  the  foundations  of 
Catholicism,  the  faith  of  the  fathers,  and  the  authority  of  coun- 
cils. The  Roman  populace,  unaccustomed  to  moderation,  pro- 
ceeded to  greater  extremity.  These,  in  the  extravagancy  of 
their  zeal,  threw  the  emperor's  image  from  the  church,  and  ex- 
punged his  name  from  the  public  liturgy.  The  infatuated  peo- 
ple proceeded  even  to  oppose  the  Roman  governor,  wno  had 
been  appointed  by  the  heretical  emperor.  A  skirmish,  before 
the  palace,  was  the  consequence,  in  which  twenty-five  were 

1  Zonaras,  XIV.  26.  Theoph.  240.  Bin.  5.  448.  Labb.  1.  130.  Spon.  712. 
VIII.  Godeau,  5.  339. 


FINAL    EXTINCTION    OF     MONOTHELITISM.  353 

killed.  The  Pope,  however,  dispatched  a  deputation  to  the 
clergy  with  the  gospel  and  cross  in  their  hand,  to  part  the 
combatants  and  allow  the  governor  to  take  possession  of  the 
palace.1 

Philippicus,  in  the  mean  time,  prepared  to  wreak  his  ven- 
geance on  the  pontiff  and  the  people,  was,  by  a  conspiracy, 
driven  from  the  throne,  and  Anastasius,  as  zealous  for  orthodoxy 
as  Philippicus  had  been  for  heresy,  was  raised  to  the  imperial 
dignity.  He,  accordingly,  issued  an  edict  to  the  metropolitans, 
commanding  the  reception  of  the  sixth  general  council,  and  the 
condemnation  of  all  who  should  reject  its  decisions,  which,  he 
said,  had  been  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  imperial  edict 
met  no  opposition.  The  will  of  the  reigning  emperor  being 
known,  the  transition  of  the  Grecian  clergy  from  rank  heresy  to 
high  orthodoxy  was  instantaneous.  Monothelitism  never  re- 
covered this  shock,  but  hastened,  by  rapid  declension,  to  nearly 
total  extinction.  Arianism,  Nestorianism,  and  Monophysitism, 
survived  the  anathemas  of  general  councils,  and  even  flourished 
in  the  face  of  opposition.  But  imperial,  papal,  and  synodal 
authority,  which  had  formerly  been  wielded  in  support  of 
Monothelitism,  succeeded,  in  the  vicissitudes  of  religion,  in  its 
suppression,  and  finally  to  its  almost  universal  extinction. 

1  Beda,  Chron.  Ann.  716.     Bruy.  1.  512.     Alex.  13.  61.  62. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


PELAGIANISM. 

ITS  AUTHOR  AND  DISSEMINATION — PATRONIZED  BT  THE    ASIANS — OPPOSED  BT  THB 

AFRICANS CONDEMNED  BT  INNOCENT APPROVED  BY  ZOZIMUS ANATHEMATIZED 

BT  ZOZIMUS DENOUNCED  BT  THE  ASIANS — CENSURED  BT  THK  GENERAL  COUNCIL 

OF  EPHESUS DECLENSION  OF   PELAGIANISM CONTROVERST  IN  THE  NINTH  CEN- 

TURT GOTTESCALCUS  AGAINST  RABANUS THE  COUNCILS  OF  MENTZ  AND  QU1ERCT 

AGAINST  THE  COUNCILS  OF  VALENCE    AND    LANGRE9 MODERN    CONTROVERST 

COUNCIL  OF  TRENT RHEMISH  ANNOTATIONS DOMINICANS  AGAINST  THE  MOLINISTS 

CONGREGATION  OF   HELPS THE    JESUITS    AGAINST    THE    JANSENI8TS CONTRO. 

VERST  ON  QUESNEL'S  MORAL  REFLECTIONS. 

PELAGIANISM  misrepresented  man,  as  Arianism  misrepresented 
Emmanuel,  who  is  both  God  and  man.  The  whole  human 
family,  according  to  the  Pelagian  system,  continues,  in  its 
present  condition,  to  possess  the  same  moral  power  and  purity 
as  Adam  in  a  state  of  innocence.  The  patrons  of  this  theology 
deny  the  fall  and  recovery  of  man,  and  the  imputation  of  sin 
and  righteousness.  Grace,  which  in  this  theory  is  the  reward 
of  merit,  is,  its  abettors  maintain,  wholly  unnecessary  for  the 
attainment  of  holiness,  which  is  the  offspring  of  free-will.  Man, 
in  the  due  exercise  of  his  moral  powers,  actuated  by  free-will 
and  unaided  by  divine  influence,  may  arrive  at  a  moral  perfec- 
tion, beyond  the  sphere  of  criminality  and  condemnation. 
Adam  was  created  mortal ;  and  death  is  not  the  effect  of  sin, 
but  a  law  of  nature.1  The  design  of  this  impiety  was  the  vain 
adulation  of  human  ability,  for  the  purpose  of  superseding  the 
necessity  of  divine  assistance. 

The  authors  of  this  heresy  were  Pelagius  and  Celestius. 
Pelagius  was  an  Englishman  :  and  possessed  eloquence  and 
capacity ;  but  at  the  same  time,  artifice  and  dissimulation, 
Celestius,  his  pupil,  was  a  native  of  Scotland  or,  as  some  say, 
of  Ireland.  He  was  educated  in  the  Pelagian  school  and 
attached  to  the  Pelagian  system,  but  excelled  his  tutor  in  can- 
dour and  uprightness.2 

1  August.  Peccat.  Orig.  c.  17,  30.     Morery,  7.  105.     Crabb.  1.  470.    Prosp.   I 
430.     Tournelly,  1.  131.     Godeau,  3.  lia 
•Poly.  Virg.  56.     Bin.  1.  863.    Alex  10.  50. 

' 


PELAGIANISM    PATRONIZED    BY    THE    ARIANS.  355 

These  two  companions  in  error  began  the  dissemination  of 
their  opinions  in  the  Roman  capital,  about  the  commencement 
of  the  fifth  century.  The  publication  of  the  Pelagian  theology 
in  the  Roman  city  was,  through  fear  of  detection,  conducted 
with  caution  and  in  privacy.  Retiring  from  Rome  in  410,  on 
the  approach  of  the  Goths,  the  two  heresiarchs  repaired  to  Sicily 
and  afterwards  to  Africa , where  they  published  their  sentiments 
with  more  freedom.  Celestius,  for  some  time,  remained  in 
Africa,  while  Pelagius  passed  into  Asia  to  Palestine.  Pelagian- 
ism,  in  this  way,  was  propagated  in  the  European,  African,  and 
Asian  continents  ;  and  succeeded,  says  Augustine,  far  beyond 
expectation.  A  spark,  says  Godeau,  *  augmented  to  a  confla- 
gration, which  threatened  to  consume  the  Christian  common- 
wealth.'1 

Pelagianism,  like  all  systems  introduced  among  men,  met  a 
diversified  reception  ;  and  was  alternately  praised  and  blamed, 
condemned  and  approved,  by  popes  and  councils.  Pelagius 
in  Palestine  gained  the  friendship  of  John,  patriarch  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  was  protected  by  this  chief  from  the  accusations 
preferred  against  the  heresiarch  in  the  synods  of  Jerusalem  and 
Diospolis.  Orosius,  in  415,  accused  Pelagius  of  heresy,  in  a 
synod  or  conference  at  Jerusalem.  John,  the  friend  of 
Pelagius,  presided  in  this  assembly.  Orosius  opposed  the 
authority  of  Jerome  and  Augustine  to  that  of  Pelagius.2  The 
plea,  however,  was  disregarded.  The  synod,  after  some  alter- 
cation, agreed  to  consult  Pope  Innocent  before  they  should 
come  to  a  decision. 

Heros  and  Lazarus,  in  the  same  year,  accused  Pelagius  before 
fourteen  bishops  in  the  synod  of  Diospolis  or  Lydda,  a  city  of 
Palestine.  Eulogius,  a  metropolitan  of  Caesarea,  presided,  and 
John  of  Jerusalem  occupied  the  second  place.  Pelagius  was 
again  acquitted.  One  of  his  accusers  was  detained  by  sickness, 
and  the  other  would  not  abandon  his  friend  in  that  extremity. 
The  judges  were,  in  a  great  measure,  unacquainted  with  Latin, 
and  could  not  understand  the  book  of  Pelagius,  which  he  had 
published  in  favour  of  his  system.  The  accused,  besides, 
showed  his  usual  prevarication  and  address.  He  disclaimed 
some  of  his  errors,  explained  others  in  an  orthodox  sense,  and 
anathematized  all  opinions  contrary  to  Catholicism.  His  the- 
ology in  consequence  was  approved,  and  he  himself  continued 
in  the  enjoyment  of  ecclesiastical  communion.  Pelagius  after- 
ward boasted  that  his  opinion  on  the  moral  powers  of  man  was 


1  Godea.  3.  118.     Phot.  cod.  54.     Crabb.  1.  470.     Aug.  Ep.  89 

2  Alex.  10.  155.     Aug.  10.  508. 

23* 


356  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY t 

sanctioned  by  this  synod,  which  Jerome  called  the  pitiful  con- 
vention of  Diospolis.1 

Pelagius  and  his  principles  in  this  manner  escaped  the  con- 
demnation of  the  Asians  ;  and  even,  in  a  limited  sense,  obtained 
their  approbation.  But  all  his  finesse  could  neither  elude  the 
vigilance  nor  escape  the  activity  of  the  African  clergy.  Celes- 
tius,  the  companion  and  pupil  of  Pelagius,  had,  early  as  the  year 
412,  been  condemned  and  excommunicated  in  the  Carthaginian 
synod.  Aurelius,  the  Carthaginian  bishop  presided  on  the 
occasion.  The  accusation  was  preferred  by  Paulinus  a 
deacon,  and  the  sentence  of  condemnation  extended  both  to 
the  heresy  and  its  author.  The  Carthaginian  prelacy,  amount- 
ing to  sixty-eight,  again  in  416  anathematized  both  Pelagius 
and  Celestius  and  condemned  their  principles.  The  Numidians, 
also,  to  the  amount  of  sixty,  following  the  example  of  the  Car- 
thaginians, assembled  in  council  at  Milevum,  expressed  their 
horror  of  Pelagian  ism  and  anathematized  its  abettors.  Augus- 
tine, also,  who  swayed  the  African  councils  and  influenced 
their  decisions,  declared,  in  a  public  manner,  against  the 
Pelagian  impiety.  The  whole  African  episcopacy  in  this  way, 
raised  their  voice  with  resolution  and  unanimity  against  the 
rising  error.2 

The  Africans,  in  this  manner,  in  a  church  boasting  its  unvary- 
ing unity,  encountered  the  Asians,  and  condemned  the  theology 
which  the  latter  approved.  But  diversity  of  sentiment,  on  this 
topic,  was  not  limited  to  the  African  and  Asian  prelacy.  '  Roman 
pontiffs,  in  Roman  councils,  displayed  similar  discordancy. 
The  African  clergy  transmitted  their  decisions,  on  the  subject 
of  Pelagianism,  to  Pope  Innocent  for  his  approbation.  The 
pontiff,  though  at  one  time  suspected  of  countenancing  Pelag- 
ianism, proceeded,  after  some  big  talk  about  the  dignity  of  the 
apostolic  see,  to  sanction  the  judgment  of  the  Africans,  and 
excommunicated  Pelagius,  who  according  to  his  holiness, i  was 
led  captive  by  Satan,  and  unworthy  of  ecclesiastical  communion, 
civil  society,  or  even  human  life.'  Pelagianism,  contained  in 
a  book  which  the  heresiarch  had  published,  his  infallibility 
characterized  *  as  contagion  and  blasphemy.'3  The  African 
decisions,  in  this  manner,  were  corroborated  by  pontifical 
authority,  and  the  westerns,  with  steady  and  determined 
unanimity,  declared  against  the  orientals. 

But  Innocent  in  the  mean  time  died,  and  was  succeeded  by 

1  Godeau,  3.  140,  143.     Bray.  1.  162.     Augustin,  2.  622.  et  10. 219.     Alexander, 
10.  159.     Jerom,  Ep.  79. 

2  Crabb.  1.  469,  473,  475.     Bin.  1.  864,  866,  869.    Godeau,  3.  147.    Alexander, 
10.  159. 

3  In  quo,  multa  blasphemia.     Innocent,  ad  Aurel.     II  n'y  a  trouve  que  des  blas- 
phemes.  Godeau,  3.  150.   Aug.  Ep.  93.  Labb.  3.  8.    Bruys,  1.  178.   Alex.  10. 163. 


PELAGIANISM    APPROVED    BY   ZOZIMUS.  357 

Zozimus  ;  and  this  event  interrupted  the  harmony  of  the  Latins. 
This  pontiff  threw  the  whole  weight  of  his  infallibilty  into  the 
scale  of  the  Asians  and  of  Pelagianism  against  the  Africans  and 
orthodoxy.  Celestius,  condemned  by  the  Carthaginians  and 
Numidians,  fled  to  Ephesus  and  Constantinople.  But  the 
odium  of  his  theology  caused  his  expulsion  from  both  these 
cities  ;  and  he  repaired,  in  consequence,  to  the  Roman  capital, 
to  seek  the  protection  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  who,  he  knew, 
seldom  rejected  the  opportunity  of  extending  his  jurisdiction 
and  drawing  appeals  to  his  tribunal. 

Celestius,  therefore,  in  full  anticipation  of  success,  presented 
himself  before  Zozimus,  declared  his  innocence,  and  deprecated 
the  aspersions  which  had  been  circulated  to  blast  his  reputation. 
He  also  presented  a  confession  of  faith,  which  among  other 
things,  contained  a  rejection  of  original  sin,  and,  of  course,  ac- 
cording to  the  theology  of  Romanism  and  the  future  profession 
of  Zozimus,  an  avowal  of  rank  heresy.  His  sentiments  on  this 
subject  have  been  preserved  by  Augustine.  Sin,  Celestius  said, 
*  is  not  conveyed  to  man  by  traduction  or  hereditary  transmis- 
sion. Such  an  idea  is  foreign  to  Catholicism.  Sin,  on  the  con- 
trary, which  is  the  fault,  not  of  our  nature,  but  our  will,  is  not 
born  with  man,  but  is  his  own  act  after  he  comes  into  the 
world/1  Such  was  his  statement,  as  transmitted  by  a  Roman 
saint  of  the  first  magnitude.  The  heresiarch's  denial  of  man's 
moral  apostacy  and  original  sin  in  his  confession  is  also  admitted 
or  rather  stated  by  Godeau,  Bruys,  and  Alexander.2  This  con- 
fession, disclaiming  the  depravation  of  man,  his  infallibility  ap- 
proved in  a  Roman  synod,  and  vouched  to  the  African  clergy 
for  its  Catholicism.  He  absolved  the  heretic  and  confirmed  the 
heresy.  This  confirmation  did  not  satisfy  his  holiness.  He 
accused  the  African  bishops  of  temerity,  and  represented  all 
discussions  on  grace  and  original  sin  as  empty  speculations, 
proceeding  from  useless  refinement  or  criminal  curiosity.3  His 
holiness  also  vented  his  spleen  against  Heros  and  Lazarus,  who 
have  been  eulogized  by  Augustine  and  Prosper,  and  who,  with 
distinguished  zeal  and  activity,  had  opposed  Pelagianism. 

1  Id  asseveravit  expressius  quod  parvulorum  neminem  obstringat  originate 
peccatum.  August.  De  peccat.  Orig.  II.  2. 

Non  dicimus,  ut  peccatum  ex  traduce  firmare  videamur,  quod  longe  a  Catholico 
Bensu  alienum  est.  Quia  Peccatum  non  cum  homine  nascitur,  quod  postmodum 
exercetur  ab  homine,  quia  non  naturae  delictum,  sed  voluntatis  esse  monstratur. 
Aug.  De  Peccat.  Orig.  10.  253,  255.  Labb.  3.  408. 

3  II  nioit  ouvertement  le  peche  originel.     Godeau,  3.  145. 

L'aveu  qu'il  fit  de  sa  doctrine  sur  le  peche  originel  me  paroit  clair  et  sans  equi- 
voque. Bruys,  1.  181. 

Peccatum  originale  Caelestius,  eo  libello,  negabat.     Alex.  10.  166. 

3  Inepta  certamina,  quae  non  aedificant,  ex  ifia  curiositatis  contagione  profluere 
Zozim.  ad  Aurel.  Bin.  1.  877.  Labb.  3.  404. 

Isti  turbines  ecclesiae  vel  procellse.     Zozim.  ad  Aurel.  Labb.  3.  404. 


358  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

Zozimus  treated  both  with  the  bitterest  acrimony,  and  called 
them  pests,  whirlwinds,  and  storms,  while  he  hurled  excom- 
munication, fraught  with  imprecations  and  fury,  against  their 
devoted  heads.  All  this  was  transacted  in  a  Roman  council 
which  his  infallibility  had  assembled  in  the  Basilic  of  Clement 

The  heresy  of  Celestius,  on  this  occasion,  was  unequivocal 
and  avowed.  He  was  candid,  and  used  neither  concealment 
nor  disguise.  His  doctrine  on  original  sin,  the  infallible  council 
of  Trent  in  its  tilth  session,  complimented  with  an  anathema. 
The  Sacred  Synod,  in  its  holy  denunciations  against  all  who 
deny  original  sin,  cursed  Pope  Zozimus  with  all  his  infallibility.1 

The  acquittal  of  Celestius  was  followed  by  that  of  Pelagius. 
This  heresiarch  wrote  the  pontiff  a  letter,  which  contained  his 
own  vindication,  and  which  was  accompanied  with  a  confession 
of  his  faith.  His  opinion,  according  to  Augustine  and  Zozimus, 
corresponded  with  those  of  Celestius.  '  All  the  good  and  evil,' 
said  Pelagius  in  Augustine's  statement,  '  for  which  man  is 
praised  or  blamed,  is  not  born  with  him,  but  performed  by  him. 
Man  is  procreated  without  sin.'2  The  confession  of  Pelagius, 
says  Zozimus,  was,  in  diction  and  signification,  the  same  as 
that  of  Celestius,  which  denied  the  apostacy  of  the  human 
species.  His  infallibility,  nevertheless,  declared  himself  satis- 
fied with  the  Pelagian  theology  and  vouched  for  its  truth  and 
Catholicism.  His  reply  to  the  African  Episcopacy,  on  the 
occasion,  contained  a  eulogy  on  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  an 
invective  against  Heros  and  Lazarus,  and  a  condemnation  of 
the  Carthaginian  and  Numidian  councils. 

The  recitation  of  the  Pelagian  creed  had  a  curious  effect  on 
the  Roman  clergy,  who  were  present  in  the  council,  as  well  as 
on  the  Roman  pontiff*.  The  heresy,  as  it  afterwards  became, 
awakened  joy  and  admiration  in  these  holy  men,  who,  on  this 
occasion,  could  scarcely  refrain  from  weeping.  The  calumny, 
which  had  been  circulated  against  a  man  of  such  sound  faith 
as  Pelagius,  moved  the  compassion  of  the  Sacred  Synod,  and 
had  nearly  drawn  streams  of  sympathetic  tears  from  their 
eyes.8 

The  Roman  convention  was  not  the  only  ecclesiastical  assem- 
bly which,  in  western  Christendom,  sanctioned  Pelagianism. 

»  Lnbb.  20.  27. 

3  Omne  bonum  et  malum,  quo  vel  landabiles  vel  vituperabiles  sumus,  nofl  nob  is. 
cum  oritur  sed  agitur  a  nobis.  Sine  vitio  procreamur  August.  Pec.  Or.  14.  P. 
258.  Godea.  3.  155.  Lnbb.  3.  403. 

Invenient  Zosimnm,  fid  em  ipsius  Pelagii,  tanqunm  veram  et  catholicam,  landnn- 
tern.  Pelagium  et  Ccelestium  putarent  orthodoxos.  Facundua  vii.  3.  Augustin, 
10.  102. 

3  Quod  sanctorom  viroram,  qni  aderant,  gaudium  fuit?  Qua3  admiratio  singul(v 
rum  ?  Vix  fletu  qnidem  se  et  lac  ry  mis  temperabant.  Labb.  3.  404.  Alex.  10 
168.  Godeau,  3.  156. 


PELAGIANISM    APPROVED    BY    ZOZIMUS.  359 

This  heresy,  in  794,  was  approved  by  the  council  of  Frankfort, 
consisting  of  three  hundred  bishops  from  Germany,  France, 
and  Italy,  assembled  by  the  French  monarch,  superintended 
by  the  Papal  Legates,  Theophylact  and  Stephen,  and  con- 
firmed by  the  Roman  pontiff.  Mistaking  the  confession  of 
Pelagius  for  a  work  of  Jerome,  this  great  congress  of  the  Latin 
clergy  stamped  the  Pelagian  creed  with  the  broad  seal  of  their 
approbation.  Pelagianism,  which  was  then  heterodoxy,  the 
holy  synod  characterized  as  the  true  faith,  which,  he  who 
believes,  shall  enjoy  eternal  salvation.  The  Frankfordians, 
who  represented  the  whole  Latin  communion,  became  Pelagians. 
The  German  council  confounded  the  works  of  Jerome  and 
Pelagius,  and  could  not  distinguish  between  heresy  and 
Catholicism,  as  the  Roman  Synod,  though  superintended  by 
his  infallibility,  had  been  unable  to  discriminate  Pelagianism 
from  orthodoxy.1 

The  Africans,  however,  were  not  intimidated  by  his  infalli- 
bility's threats  and  indignation  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  continued 
their  opposition,  with  resolution  and  unanimity.  The  Prelacy 
of  all  Africa,  to  the  amount  of  214,  assembled  in  417,  and 
confirmed  their  former  sentence,  in  opposition  to  the  judgment 
of  Zozimus.  This  did  not  satisfy  their  zeal.  These  active  de- 
fenders of  the  faith,  to  the  number  of  225,  met  again  in  418, 
and  enacted  eight  canons  against  Pelagianism.2  The  firmness 
of  the  African  clergy,  indeed,  seems  to  have  been  the  means  of 
preventing  the  Pelagian  theology  from  becoming  the  faith  of 
Christendom.  Had  their  zeal  yielded  to  the  perversity  of  his 
holiness,  Pelagianism  would,  in  all  probability,  have  become 
Catholicism.  Heresy  might  have  been  transubstantiated  into 
orthodoxy,  and  become  the  divinity  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
communion.  But  the  energy  of  the  African,  not  the  Roman 
church,  overcame  every  difficulty,  and  the  faith  of  Augustine, 
not  of  Zozimus,  prevailed. 

The  patrons  of  the  papacy  admit  the  mistake  of  Zozimus. 
These  have  been  forced  to  grant  that  the  pontiff  sanctioned 
heresy  as  Catholicism.  Augustine,  having  formed  several 
excuses  for  Zozimus  and  his  council,  insinuates,  in  the  end, 
'the  prevarication  of  the  Roman  clergy.'  Zozimus,  says 
Facundus,  '  condemned  the  sentence  of  his  predecessor  and 
the  African  prelacy,  and  extolled  the  faith  of  Pelagius  and 
Celestius  as  true  ^Catholicism.'  Zozimus,  says  Godeau  in 
modern  times,  '  received  the  confession  of  Celestius  as  Catho- 
licism and  its  author  as  orthodox.'  The  credulous  pontiff, 
according  to  Alexander,  « accounted  the  Heresiarch's  book 

»  Bruys,  1.  183.     Vossius,  18.  •  Bin.  1.  883.     Bruys,  1.  186. 


360  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

orthodox,  and  formed  a  high  opinion  of  his  Catholicism.' 
Zozimus,  says  Caron,  'erred,  when  he  vouched  for  the  ortho- 
doxy of  Pelagianism.'  The  confession  of  Celestius,  according 
to  Moreri,  '  was  not  entirely  exempted  from  error.'  Zozimus, 
in  the  statement  of  Du  Pin,  '  pronounced  the  Catholicism  of  a 
heretical  creed,  and  recommended  it  by  letters  to  the  African 
clergy.1 

The  Africans,  in  these  scenes  of  altercation,  engaged  in  mor- 
tal conflict  with  the  Asians,  and  Pope  Innocent  with  Pope 
Zozimus.  Church  appeared  against  church,  and  infallibility 
against  infallibility.  Zozimus  is  next  to  take  the  field  against 
himself.  Several  reasons  contributed  to  this  effect.  The  Afri- 
cans continued  their  opposition  with  the  utmost  resolution. 
Jerome  and  Augustine,  the  two  greatest  luminaries  of  the  Latin 
communion,  and  whose  judgment  influenced  Western  Chris- 
tendom, declared  openly  against  his  holiness.  The  Emperor 
Honorius,  also,  induced  by  a  deputation  from  the  African  Synod 
in  418,  approved  its  decisions,  and  enacted  cruel  laws,  dated 
from  Ravenna,  against  the  Pelagians,  whom  the  pretorian 
prefects  were,  by  royal  authority,  empowered  to  deprive  of 
their  estates  and  condemn  to  perpetual  banishment.2 

His  infallibility,  at  this  crisis,  saw  his  danger  and  sounded  a 
retreat.  His  holiness  yielded  to  the  storm  ;  and,  facing  to  the 
right  about,  anathematized  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  whom  he  had 
honoured  with  his  approbation  and  covered  with  his  protection ; 
while,  in  the  midst  of  his  perplexity,  he  continued,  with  ridicu- 
lous vanity  and  inconsistency,  to  boast  of  his  pontifical  preroga- 
tives and  authority.  This  vice-god,  in  the  modest  language  of 
Pope  Paul,  chattered  about  the  pre-eminence  of  the  popedom, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  cursed  Pelagianism,  which  he  had  for- 
merly sanctioned,  with  might  and  main.  His  infallibility,  in  a 
sacred  synod  of  the  Roman  clergy,  condemned  the  confession  of 
faith  which  he  had  approved,  confirmed  the  sentence  of  the 
Africans  which  he  had  rejected,  and  anathematized  the  persons 
whom  he  had  patronized.  Pelagianism,  which,  a  few  months 
before,  he  had  dubbed  Catholicism,  now,  by  a  hasty  process, 

1  Ex  hoc  potius  esset  praevaricationis  nota  Romania  clericis  inurenda.  August. 
10.  434.  Invenient  Zozimum  contra  Innocentii  decessoris  sui  sententiam,  qui 
primus  Pelagianam  haeresim  condemnavit,  fidem  ipsius  Pelagii  ejusque  complicia 
Celestri",  tanquam  veracn  et  Catholicam  laudantem,  insuper  etiam  Africanos  culpan- 
tem  episcopos.  Facundus,  VII.  3.  Zozime  rec,ut  son  livre  comme  Catholique,  et 
lui  comme  orthodoxe.  Godea.  3.  153.  Zozimus  magnam  de  Pelagii  ipsius  et 
Caelestii  orthodoxia  concepit  opinionem.  Libellum  Catholicum  existimavit.  Alex. 
10.  167,  169.  Zozimus  aberravit,  cum  Caelestinum  Pelagianum  pro  Catholico 
declarasset.  Caron,  100.  Qui  n'etoit  pas  entierement  exempte  d'erreur.  Moreri, 
8.  116.  Zozimus  Caelestii  haeretici  Libellum  Catholicum  esse  pronunciavit.  Du 
Pin,  348 

a  Alex   10.  183.     Godeau.  3.  166. 


PELAGIANISM    CONDEMNED    BY    THE    ASIANS.  361 

became,  in  the  language  of  Zozimus,  impiety,  poison,  abomina- 
tion, error,  perversity,  execration,  pestilence,  and  heresy.  Un- 
satisfied with  these  imprecations,  he  proceeded,  in  the  fervour 
if  his  zeal  for  orthodoxy,  to  publish  through  Christendom  circu- 
var  letters,  denouncing  anathemas  on  the  Pelagian  impiety.1 

His  holiness,  to  do  him  justice,  showed  himself,  on  this  occa- 
sion, a  profound  adept  in  the  Christian  art  of  cursing.  He 
formed  his  anathemas  with  skill,  pointed  them  with  precision, 
•and  launched  them  with  energy.  His  infallibility,  probably 
from  the  proficiency  which  he  displayed  in  the  evangelical  duty 
of  cursing,  and  for  his  attachment  to  injustice  and  ambition 
during  his  life,  was  canonized  after  his  death.  He  lived  a  tyrant 
and  died  a  saint,  or  rather,  by  a  lucky  hit  or  Baronian  blunder, 
acquired  the  saintified  character  after  his  decease.  His  carcass 
affoids  materials  for  worship  :  and  indeed,  with  all  his  imper- 
fections; which  were  many,  Zozimus  is  not  the  worst  article 
of  the  kind,  which  has  graced  the  Roman  calendar  and  chal- 
lenged Roman  adoration. 

The  Asians  also,  like  the  pope,  wheeled  to  the  right  about, 
and  manfully  condemned  their  former  sentences,  which  they 
had  pronounced  in  favour  of  Pelagius.  The  heresiarch  had 
been  patronized  by  John  and  Eulogius,  and  was  afterward 
denounced  by  Theodotus  and  Theodorus.  He  had  been 
acquitted  in  the  councils  of  Jerusalem  and  Diospolis,  and  was 
afterwards  condemned  in  those  of  Antioch  and  Cilicia. 
Theodotus,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  assembled  a  council  in  that 
city  about  the  end  of  the  year  418,  and  without  any  ceremony, 
condemned  Pelagianism  and  anathematized  its  unfortunate 
author.2 

Theodotus  was  imitated  by  Theodorus.  This  changeling, 
who,  like  his  Roman  infallibility,  varied  his  religion  with  the 
occasion,  had  patronised  Pelagius  and  opposed  Augustine.  But 
his  temporising  versatility  induced  him,  about  420,  to  convene 
a  synod  in  Cilicia,  in  which  he  abjured  his  former  profession  and 
denounced  his  former  system.  The  Cilician  clergy,  with  easy 
docility  and  Christian  resignation,  copied  the  obliging  politeness 
of  their  superior.3  Such  was  the  accomodating  facility  with 
which  the  orientals  abandoned  their  prior  faith,  and  embraced 
the  fashionable  theology. 

Pelagianism,  in  conjunction  with  Nestorianism,  was,  in  431, 
denounced  by  the  general  council  of  Ephesus.  The  Ephesian 
assembly,  being  accounted  a  representation  of  the  whole  church 

1  Detectus  a  Zozirao,  et  haereticorum  scelestissimus  postea  ostensus  fuit.    Labb. 
3.  403.     Augustin.  1.  58.  et  10.  263.    Prosper,  1.  76.     Bin.  1.  871.     Alex.  10.  176 
3  Mercator.  c.  3.     Coss.  i.  298.     Labb.  3.  497. 
3  Alex.  10.  178.     Labb.  3.  498.     Garner,  219. 


362  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

its  sentence,  in  consequence,  was  of  the  highest  authority,  and 
gave  the  Pelagian  heresy  the  finishing  blow.  Celestine  also,  the 
Roman  pontiff'  of  the  clay,  exerted  all  his  energy  for  the  exter- 
mination of  the  error,  which  had  been  patronized  by  his  prede- 
cessor. Addressing  Maximian  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  he 
characterised  Pelagianism  as  an  impiety  which  deserved  no 
quarter.  Its  partizans,  he  admonished  the  patriarch  to  expel 
from  human  society,  lest  the  impious  system,  through  his  lenity, 
should  revive.1 

These  synodal  canons  and  imperial  laws  were  followed  by  the 
rapid  declension  of  Pelagianism.  An  odium,  by  these  means, 
was  thrown  on  the  system,  which  covered  its  partizans  with  sus- 
picion and  unpopularity.  Its  enemies,  in  consequence,  imagined 
they  had  effected  its  destruction.  Prosper  composed  the  epi- 
taph of  Pelagianism  and  Nestorianisrn,  which  he  denominated 
mother  and  daughter,  and  represented  as  buried  in  the  same 
tomb.2  But  the  triumph  was  ideal.  A  future  day  witnessed 
the  resurrection  of  the  entombed  theology.  The  ancient 
pontiffs,  after  a  lapse  of  many  years,  were  opposed  by  their 
more  modern  successors. 

The  controversy  on  grace,  free-will,  and  predestination  seemed, 
for  a  long  period  after  the  declension  of  Pelagianism,  to  sleep. 
Christendom,  says  Calmet  in  his  Dissertation  on  predestination, 
continued,  after  the  council  of  Orange,  to  enjoy,  on  these 
topics,  a  peace  of  three  hundred  years.  But  a  theological  dis- 
putation, similar  to  the  Pelagian,  originated  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury. Augustine,  refuting  Pelagian  free-will,  taught,  as  Calmet, 
Godeau,  and  Mabillon  have  shown,  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous 
predestination.  '  Predestination,'  said  the  African  saint,  'is  the 
precursor  of  grace  ;  but  grace  is  the  donation  itself.'3  This 
theology,  insinuated  by  Augustine,  became  afterward  a  fertile 
source  of  contest  among  the  French  clergy. 

Gottescalcus  and  Raban,  in  this  controversy,  appeared  first 
in  the  arena  of  literary  combat.  Gottescalcus  was  a  monk  and 
distinguished  for  learning.  He  maintained  the  system  of  pre- 
destination, and  particular  redemption,  which,  in  modern  times, 
has  been  called  Calvinism.  He  taught  the  kindred  doctrines 
of  election  and  reprobation.  Raban  and  Hincmar,  indeed, 
represented  Gottescalcus  as  denying  free-will  and  teaching 
predestination  to  sin  as  well  as  to  punishment.  This,  however, 
was  a  mere  calumny.  The  monk  rejected  every  insinuation 
of  the  kind  with  the  utmost  indignation.  The  wicked,  Gottes- 

» Bin.  2.  576,  577,  578.     Alex.  10.  182. 
•Prosp.  1.  114.     Bray.  1.  209. 

3  Praedestinatio  est  gratiae  praeparatio ;  gratia  vero  jam  ipsa  donatio.  Aug.  De 
P*aed.  c.  10.  Godeau.  6.  368.  Calmet,  3.  384. 


COUNCILS  OPPOSED  TO  COUNCILS.  365 

calcus  declared,  were  not  compelled  by  any  necessity  to  perpe- 
trate immorality,  and  would  be  punished  only  for  voluntary 
transgression.1 

Rabari,  Archbishop  of  Mentz,  opposed  Gottescalcus.  The 
jirchbishop  seems  to  have  admitted  election;  but  denied  repro- 
bation. He  acknowledged  predestination  to  life  ;  but  not  to 
death :  and,  like  many  other  polemics,  misrepresented  his 
adversary.  He  wrote  to  Count  Eberard  and  Bishop  NoUngus, 
and  characterized  Gottescalcus  as  a  perverter  of  religion  and  a 
forger  of  heresy.2 

Gottescalcus  and  Raban  were  not  left  to  single  combat:  but 
were  supported  by  some  of  the  ablest  theologians  and  the  most 
celebrated  characters  of  the  day.  Hincmar,  Scotus,  and  Ama- 
larius  seconded  Rabari;  whilst  Gottescalcus  was  patronized  by 
Remigius,  Bertram,  Prudentius,  Florus,  Lupus,  and  Pope 
Nicholas.  These  two  factions  maintained  their  own  particular 
views-  by  copious  quotations  from  the  fathers,  who  indeed  are 
a  kind  of  mercenary  soldiery,  whose  alliance,  offensive  and 
defensive,  may  be  obtained  by  all  theological  polemics  on  every 
topic  of  ecclesiastical  controversy.  Gottescalcus  and  Remigius 
cited  Augustine,  Fulgentius,  Jerome,  Isidorus,  and  Gregory; 
while  Raban  and  Hincmar  quoted  Chrysostom,  Gennadius, 
Hilary,  Cyprian,  Cyril,  Beda,  and  Theodorus. 

The  shock  of  councils  followed  the  war  of  theologians.  The 
councils  of  Mentz  and  Quiercy  appeared  against  those  of  Valence 
and  Langres,  as  Raban,  Hincmar,  and  Scotus  had  encountered 
Gottescalcus,  Remigius,  and  Florus.  Gottescalcus  and  his 
cause  were  first  tried  in  the  council  of  Mentz  in  848.  The 
monk  presented  his  confession  of  faith,  in  which  he  unfolded  his 
system  of  predestination  to  this  assembly.  The  synod  con- 
demned Gottescalcus  for  heresy,  and  sent  him  to  Hincmar, 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  in  whose  diocese  he  had  been  ordained 
to  the  priesthood.3 

Gottescalcus  was  next  tried  in  the  council  of  Quiercy  in  849, 
and  convicted  of  contumacy  arid  heresy.  He  was,  in  conse- 
quence, deposed  by  a  solemn  sentence,  from  the  priesthood, 
and  scourged,  without  mercy,  before  the  emperor  and  the 
surrounding  prelacy.4  Charles  was  a  spectator  of  this  act  of 
inhumanity  and  feasted  his  royal  eyes  with  this  refined  enter- 
tainment. The  punishment  was  inflicted  with  the  utmost  cruel- 
ty, so  that  Gottescalcus,  in  the  agony  of  torment,  threw  into 

1  Du  Pin,  2,  52,  53.     Calmet,  3,  186. 

a  Mubillon,  2,  681.     Mezeray,  1,  409.     Calmet,  3,  484,  486.     Godean,  6,  368 
1  Du  Pin,  2,  53.     Labbe  9,  1048.     Mabillon,  2.  286.     Godeau,  6,  132. 
4  II  fut  condamne,  comme  heretiqne.     Calmet,  3,  486.     Inventus  haereticus  ef 
incorrigibilis.     Labbe,  9.  1055.     Mabillon.  2.  682. 
Oil  le  disciplina  cruelleruent.     Godeau,  3,  136. 


364  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

the  fire  a  book  which  he  had  written  in  favour  of  his  system 
He  was  then  cast  into  prison,  where  he  was  doomed  to  suffer 
the  greatest  privations. 

But  the  decisions  of  Mentz  and  Quiercy  were  afterward  re- 
scinded by  those  of  Valence  and  Langres.  The  synod  of  Valence, 
composed  of  the  prelacy  from  the  three  provinces  of  Lyons, 
Aries,  and  Vienna,  met  in  855,  and  employed  all  its  authority 
to  sanction  the  theory  of  Gottescalcus  and  overthrow  the  system 
of  Hincmar.  The  Valentian  fathers  accordingly  issued  six 
canons,  which  treated  on  free-will  and  predestination,  and  which 
established  election,  reprobation,  and  particular  redemption.1 
The  third  canon  teaches  the  predestination  of  the  elect  to  life, 
and  the  predestination  of  the  wicked  to  death.  The  fourth 
represents  the  decision  of  Quiercy,  in  favour  of  universal  re- 
demption, as  a  grand  error,  useless,  hurtful,  and  contrary  to 
the  truth.  The  sacred  synod,  on  these  points,  professed  to 
follow  Cyprian,  Hilary,  Ambrosius,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and 
tradition. 

The  Valentians  treated  Scotus  with  great  severity.  His 
propositions,  unfit  for  pious  ears,  contained,  according  to  these 
noly  bishops,  '  a  comment  of  the  devil  rather  than  an  argument 
for  the  truth ;  while  his  silly  work,  full  of  confusion,  exhibited 
trifling  and  foolish  fables,  calculated  to  create  a  disgust  for  the 
purity  of  the  faith.'2  His  production  indeed,  on  this  subject, 
was  a  distinguished  specimen  of  folly  and  extravagance. 

The  council  of  Valence,  according  to  the  statement  of  Sir- 
mond,  Godeau,  Mabillon,  and  even  Hincmar,  condemned  the 
faith  of  Quiercy.  The  canons  of  Quiercy,  says  Sirmond,  were 
exploded  by  the  synod  of  Valence.  A  similar  statement  is  given 
by  Godeau,  Mabillon,  and  Hincmar  himself.3  These  authors, 
though  attached  to  Romanism,  admit  the  repugnance  of  the 
synod  of  Valence  to  those  of  Mentz  and  Quiercy. 

The  Valentian  council  was  confirmed  by  Pope  Nicholas. 
This  pontiff  was  highly  dissatisfied  with  the  condemnation  and 
imprisonment  of  Gottescalcus.  The  inhumanity  of  Hincmar 

1  Les  eveques  y  reconnoissent  hardement  la  predestination  des  bons  a  la  vie  eter- 
nelle,  et  celle  des  medians  a  la  raort  eternelle.  Calmet,  3.  420. 

Fatemur  praedestinationem  electorum  ad  vitam,  et  praedestinationem  impiorum 
•d  mortem.  Labbe,  9,  1151. 

Us  confessent  qu'il  y  a  une  predestination  des  impies  a  la  mort  eternelle.  Godeau, 
6.  150.  Calmet,  3.  489.  Mabillion,  3,  46. 

Propter  inutilitatem,  vel  etiam  noxietatem,  et  errorem  contrarium  veritati.  Labbe, 
9.  1152. 

llsnomment  une  grande  erreur  1'opinion  de  ceux,  qui  disent  que  le  sang  de  Jesus 
Christ  a  et6  repandu  pour  les  impies.  Godeau,  6.  150. 

8Commentum  Diaboli  potius  quam  argumentum  aliquod  fidei.  Ineptas  quaesti 
unculas,  et  aniles  pene  fabulas,  Scottorumque  pultes,  puritati  fidei  nauseam  inferen 
tes.  Mabillon,  3.  46.  Labb.  10.  129. 

»Labb.  9.  1162.     Godeau,  6.  150.     Mabillon,  3.  46.     Calmet,  3.  490, 


DECISION    OF    THE    COUNCIL    OF    TRENT.  365 

and  his  faction  excited  the  indignation  of  the  hierarch.  He 
cited  Hincmar  and  Gottescalcus  to  Rome  for  the  purpose  of 
further  investigation.  This,  however,  Hincmar  evaded.  But 
Prudentius  transmitted  the  canons  of  Valence  to  Nicholas  for 
confirmation,  and  these,  accordingly,  received  the  sanction  of 
the  pontiff.1 

Confirmed,  in  this  manner,  by  the  authority  of  the  pope,  the 
canons  of  Valence  were  also  approved  by  the  council  of  Lan- 
gres.     This  assembly  met  in  859,  and  having  considered  the 
Valentian  decisions  on  grace,  free-will,  and  predestination,  con 
ferred  on  them  the  full  sanction  of  its  authority.2 

The  controversy  on  grace,  free-will,  and  election  was  little 
agitated  from  the  ninth  till  the  sixteenth  century.  The  school- 
men indeed  exercised  their  pens  on  these  different  topics,  and 
discussed  their  knotty  subjects  with  their  accustomed  subtility: 
and  their  disputations  on  these  points  exhibited,  as  usual,  a 
great  variety  of  sense  and  phraseology.3  But  these  disquisitions 
were  carried  on  in  the  secrecy  of  the  schools,  rather  than  on 
the  public  theatre  of  the  world  ;  and,  in  consequence,  excited 
little  general  interest. 

The  reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin  rekindled  the  con- 
troversy. Luther  had  studied  the  theology  of  Augustine  arid 
Aquinas,  and  embraced  their  system.  Calvin  also  adopted  the 
same  theory,  which  represents  predestination  as  entirely  gra- 
tuitous and  unconditional,  and  which,  in  general,  had  been 
patronized  in  the  Latin  communion.  Many  of  the  Romish 
theologians,  therefore,  from  their  aversion  to  alleged  heresy, 
shifted  their  ground,  and  countenanced  conditional  election, 
founded  on  the  foresight  of  human  merit.  Calmet  acknowledges 
this  variation  with  the  utmost  candour.  '  This  question,'  says 
the  learned  Benedictine",  '  has  often  changed  its  phasis  in  the 
church.'  Arsdekin,  with  equal  ingenuousness,  makes  a  similar 
confession,  and  admits,  on  this  point,  i  a  wide  diversity  of 
opinion  even  at  this  time  among  the  Romish  doctors.'4  The 
one  party  advocate  the  unconditional  predestination  which  has 
since  been  denominated  Calvinism.  The  other  faction,  opposing 

I  Le  Pape  les  approuva.     Calmet,  3.  490.     Mabillon,  2.  682, 
*Morery,  5,  45.     Mabillon,  3.  79. 

3  Calmet,  3.  491.     Bossuet,  38. 

4  Cette  question  a  change  de  face  plus  d'une  fois  dans  PEglise.     Calmet,  3.  478. 
Inter  Doctores  Catholicos,  magna  est  etiam  hoc  tempore,  sententiarum  discre 

pantia.     Arsdekin,  1.  360.     Bossut,  38.     Du  Pin,  3.  728. 

II  y  avoit  deux  sentimens  parmi  les  theologiens  de  1'  eelise  Romaine.     Mem. 
sur  la  Pred.  169. 

Luther,  qui  avoit  etudie  la  theologie  de  Thomas  d'  Aquin,  embrassa  cette  doc- 
trine. Calvin  tomba  dans  les  memes  sentimens.  Mem.  155,  156.  Ceux  qui 
euivent  les  sentiments  de  St.  Augustin,  se  fatiguent  vainement  a  prouver  qu'ils  ne 
eont  Calvinistes.  Limiens,  10.  72. 


366  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

the  predestinarian  hypothesis,  support  the  system  which  has 
since  been  called  Arminianism.1 

The  celebrated  council  of  Trent  exemplified  the  diversity  of 
sentiment,  which,  on  this  subject,  reigned  in  the  Romish  com- 
munity. The  Franciscans,  in  this  assembly,  opposed  the  Domi- 
nicans, and  theologian  encountered  theologian.  One  party 
which  included  the  most  esteemed  doctors,  maintained  uncon- 
ditional and  gratuitous  predestination  ;  and,  in  favour  of  this 
opinion,  quoted  the  apostolic  authority  of  John  and  Paul,  to 
whom  they  added  Augustine,  Scotus,  and  Aquinas.  Another 
party  accused  this  system  of  impiety,  making  God  partial  and 
unjust,  subverting  free-will,  encouraging  men  in  sin,  and 
abandoning  them  to  despair.  These  conflicting  opinions  had  a 
neutralizing  effect  on  the  canons  of  this  convention.  The  design, 
in  their  composition,  was  to  satisfy  each  party ;  and  the  result 
therefore  was  an  unmeaning  compromise.  Calmet  admits  their 
omission  of  any  decision,  on  the  manner  and  motives  of  election 
and  reprobation. a 

The  controversy  was  continued  after  the  council  of  Trent  with 
the  bitterest  animosity.  The  Rhemists,  Dominicans,  and  Janse- 
nists  arrayed  themselves  against  the  Molinists,  Franciscans,  and 
Jesuits.  The  university  of  Paris  opened  a  battery  against  those 
of  Louvain  and  Douay ;  and  the  French  against  the  Belgian 
clergy.  The  hostile  factions,  on  these  occasions,  fought  their 
theological  battles  with  shocking  violence  and  fury. 

The  Rhemists,  in  their  annotations,  have,  in  strong  language, 
advocated  unconditional  election.  The  elect,  say  these  com- 
mentators in  their  observations  on  Paul  to  the  Romans,  Ephe- 
sians,  and  Thessalonians,  are  called  according  to  the  good- will 
or  eternal  decree  of  God,  and  not  according  to  the  purpose  or 
will  of  man.  The  divine  foreknowledge  is  not  a  mere  provision 
of  human  works,  influenced  by  ordinary  providence  or  natural 
strength  ;  but  comprehends  an  act  of  God's  will  to  his  elect 
God  has  predestinated  these  elect  to  a  conformity  with  his  Son. 
The  call,  santification,  perseverance,  and  glorification  are  the 
effects  of  free  election  and  predestination.  Jacob  was  a  figure 
of  the  elected,  and  Esau  of  the  reprobated.  God's  mercy  is 
displayed  on  the  former,  and  his  justice  on  the  latter.  Predes- 
tination is  to  be  ascribed,  not  to  man's  merit,  but  to  God's 
mercy.  The  Almighty  has  chosen  some  as  vessels  of  election, 
and  left  others  as  vessels  of  wrath  to  be  lost  in  sin.  God  has 
predestinated  his  people  to  glory  through  the  merits,  not  of 
man,  but  of  his  beloved  Son.  He  calls  some,  by  his  eternal 

1  The  scriptural  views  of  Arminius  differ  toto  coelo  from  the  semi-Pelagianisnj 
of  the  Jesuits  and  other  Papists.     [T.  0.  S. 

2  Paolo,  1.  332.     Du  Pin,  3.  438.     Calmet,  3.  491.     Mem.  164-169. 


THE    DOMINICANS    AGAINST    THE    MOLINISTS.  367 

decree,  to  the  faith ;  while  he  leaves  others  to  darkness  and 
infidelity.1 

The  principal  persons,  whose  publications  and  opinions  on 
this  subject,  excited  contests,  were  Molina,  Lessius,  Hamel, 
Jansenius,  and  Quesnel.  The  works  of  these  authors  raised 
dreadful  commotions  in  Spain,  Belgium,  France,  and  Italy. 

The  Spanish  controversy  originated  in  the  publication  of  Mo- 
lina's work,  on  the  Concord  of  Grace  and  Free-will.  The  Jesuit 
Molina  was  born  at  Cuenca  in  Spain.  He  became  professor  of 
theology  at  Evora  in  Portugal,  and  died  in  Madrid,  anno  1600. 
His  book,  which  occasioned  such  angry  and  useless  contentions, 
was  published  in  1588,  and  attempted  to  reconcile  divine  grace 
and  free-will  by  a  theory  which  its  author  called  the  Middle 
Science.  His  discovery,  when  divested  of  its  novel  diction, 
founded  the  purposes  of  God  on  the  divine  foresight  of  the 
merit  and  good  works  of  men.2 

Molina's  work  had  the  honour  of  being  both  approved  and 
condemned  in  an  infallible  communion.  The  Dominicans,  on 
this  subject,  encountered  the  Jesuits.  Attached  to  the  faith  of 
Augustine  and  Aquinas,  as  well  as  mindful  of  their  ancient 
enmity  to  the  Jesuits,  the  former  society  commenced  a  vigorous 
attack  on  Molinism.  The  Middle  Science,  these  partizans  of 
predestination  represented  as  a  system  of  Pelagianism.  The 
Jesuits,  on  the  contrary,  defended  Molina's  Middle  Science, 
which  they  extolled  as  truth  and  Christianity.  The  theory 
which  the  one  called  heresy,  the  other  denominated  Catholicism. 
Each  party  published  its  theses,  brimfull  of  virulence  and 
sarcasm.  The  two  factions  vented  their  indignation  with  such 
fury,  that  the  king  of  Spain  had  to  interfere,  for  the  purpose  of 
allaying  their  mutual  rage  and  keeping  the  peace  :  while  all 
the  royal  authority  was  found  incompetent  entirely  to  suppress 
the  theological  war.3 

The  university  of  Salamanca,  on  this  speculation,  assailed  the 
university  of  Alcala.  The  former  seminary,  in  nine  propositions, 
proscribed  Molinism.  The  latter,  having  subjected  the  work  to 
a  rigid  examination  for  a  whole  year,  vouched  for  its  Catho- 
licism, and  conformity  to  scripture,  councils,  fathers,  and 
schoolmen.4  Of  the  two  learned  and  orthodox  colleges,  the 

1  Rhem.  Annot.  on  Rom.  viii.  22.  29,    30.  et  ix.   10.    14-16.  22.     Eph.    i.   4. 
2  Thess.  ii.  13. 

2  Arsdekin,  1.  385.     Moreri,  3.  568.  et  6.  365.     Mem.  219. 

3  Les   Dominiciuns  1'  attaquerent  vivement.     Lea   Jesuites  le   defenderent   do 
m&me.     Calmet,    3.    495.     Les    deux   ordres    commencerent   a   s'    echauffer   en 
Espapne,  1'  un  contre  1'  autre,   d'  une  maniere   scandaleuse.     Mem.  sur  Predest. 
223,  226. 

Les  Jrwiites  smt  tres-emtmrrassez  a  montrer  qu'  ils  ne  sont  ni  Pebgiens  nj 
Demi-IVLtgiens.  Litniers,  10.  72. 

4  L'  uuiversite  de  Salamunque  le  censura.     Mem.  222,  225. 


368  THE    VARIATIONS   OF    POPERY: 

one  censured  as  error,  the  system  which  the  other  patronized 
as  truth  and  Romanism. 

The  Inquisition  of  Spain,  on  this  topic,  attacked  the  Inqui- 
sition of  Portugal.  The  latter  declared  the  Concord  of  Grace 
and  Free  Will  free  from  all  suspicion  of  error.  But  the  former, 
always  favourable  to  the  Dominicans,  censured  a  number  of 
propositions,  extracted  from  Molina's  celebrated  production.1 
The  peninsular  inquisitors,  the  professed  enemies  of  mercy 
and  heresy  and  the  avowed  friends  of  inhumanity  and  Roman- 
ism, differed  on  a  question  of  which  they  were  the  accredited 
and  official  judges,  and  whose  sentence  entailed  death,  in  all 
its  horrors,  on  its  devoted  victim. 

Two  Roman  pontiffs,  Clement  and  Paul,  next  pronounced 
different  sentences  on  this  question.  The  controversy  was 
transferred  from  the  holy  office  to  the  holy  see,  and  from  Spain 
to  Italy.  Clement  the  Eighth,  who  then  occupied  the  pontifical 
throne,  established  the  Congregation  of  Helps  for  the  decision 
of  this  contest.  This  assembly  consisted  of  ten  consultors,  who 
were  the  appointed  judges,  and  who  met  for  the  first  time  in 
1598.  The  Dominicans  and  Jesuits  argued  their  several 
systems,  before  this  convention,  and  awaited  its  sentence  with 
anxiety. 

The  Congregation,  under  his  infallibility's  immediate  superin- 
tendence, rejected  Molina's  theory  of  a  middle  science,  and  con- 
demned sixty  of  his  propositions.  This  decision,  in  the  eleventh 
session,  represented  the  Spanish  speculator's  sentiments  on  pre- 
destination as  consonant  with  those  of  Faustus,  Cassian,  and  the 
Pelagians,  and  contrary,  not  only  to  Augustine,  and  Aquinas, 
but  also  to  sacred  writ  and  the  canons  of  councils.8 

Paul  the  Fifth,  who  succeeded  Clement  in  1605,  proceeded  in 
a  course  widely  different  from  his  predecessor.  He  issued  no 
determination.  His  design,  lest  he  should  offend  the  French 
king  who  protected  the  Jesuits,  or  the  Spanish  monarch  who 
patronized  the  Jansenists,  was,  not  the  decision,  but  the  sup- 
pression of  the  controversy.  His  supremacy,  therefore,  after 
many  solemn  deliberations,  evaded  a  definitive  sentence :  and, 

Complutensis  Universitas  Molinae  Concordiam  per  annum  integrum  rigido  ex- 
amini  subjecit.  Universitatis  calculo  declaratur,  in  Molinae  Concordia  contineri 
sanam  et  Catholics m  doctrinam.  Arsdekin,  1.  325. 

1  Omni  erroris  suspicione  liberata.     Arsdekin,  1.  325.     Calmet,  3.  495. 

L'  inquisition  d'  Espague,  toujours  favorable  aux  Dominicains.  Mem.  243.  Illi, 
ex  Molinae  Concordia,  propositiones  aliquas  modo  consurarent.  Arsdekin,  1.  326. 

2  On  declara  que  le  sentiment  de  Molina,  touchant  la  predestination,  etoil  non 
seuleuient  contraire  a  la  doctrine  de  Saint  Thomas,  et  de  Saint  Augustin,  mais  en 
core  a  1'  ecriture  sainte,  aux  decrets  des  conciles,  et  conforme  a  celle  de  Cassien 
et  de  Fauste.     Calmet.  Diss.  3.  496.     Amour,  40,  44,  45,  100,  123. 

La  congregation  declara  que  Molina  etoit  dans  des  sentimens  semblables  4  ceux 
des  Pelagiens.  Mem.  233,  236.  Calmet,  3.  497.  Thuan.  6.  241. 


THE    JESUITS    AGAINST    THE    JANSENISTS.  369 

advising  both  to  modify  their  expressions  and  to  abstain  from 
mutual  ^obloquy,  left  each  faction  to  enjoy  its  own  opinions.1 

Each  party,  in  consequence,  as  might  be  expected,  claimed 
the  victory.  The  Dominicans  averred  that  the  decision,  if 
announced,  would  have  been  in  their  favour  :  and  this  was  the 
general  opinion.  The  Jesuits,  on  the  contrary,  shouted  triumph, 
and,  patronized  by  the  greater  part  of  European  Christendom, 
contemned  the  empty  boasts  of  the  enemy. 

France  and  the  Netherlands  became  the  scene  of  this  contro- 
versy, which  had  raged  with  such  fearful  animosity  in  Spain  and 
Italy.  The  belligerents,  on  this  occasion,  were  the  Jesuits  and 
Jansenists,  as  on  the  former,  the  Jesuits  and  Dominicans.  The 
Dominican  ardor,  through  time  and  the  suggestions  of  prudence, 
had  cooled,  and  this  party,  in  consequence,  had,  in  general,  left 
the  field.  But  their  place  was  well  supplied  by  the  fiery  zeal 
of  the  Jansenists,  who,  in  the  support  of  their  system,  spurned 
every  idea  of  prudence  or  caution.  These  two  leading  factions 
soon  drew  into  the  vortex  of  contention,  kings,  parliaments, 
pontiffs,  prelates,  doctors,  nuns,  universities,  and  councils. 

The  Jansenists,  who  now  in  place  of  the  Dominicans,  entered 
the  arena  against  the  Jesuits,  took  their  name  from  Jansenius, 
a  bishop  in  the  Romish  communion,  and  a  doctor  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Louvain.  His  work,  which  he  styled  Augustine,  and 
which  treated  on  grace,  free  will,  and  predestination,  was  pub- 
lished at  Louvain  in  1640.  The  author,  who  was  celebrated  for 
his  learning  and  piety,  undertook  to  deliver  not  his  own,  but 
Augustine's  sentiments  on  Divine  Grace  and  human  imbecility. 
He  even  transcribed  in  many  instances  his  patron's  own  words. 
The  faith  of  the  Roman  saint  was  like  its  author,  idolized  in  the 
Romish  communion.  Jansenius,  therefore,  wished  to  shield 
himself  under  the  authority  of  his  mighty  name.  But  the 
march  of  events  and  the  sap  of  time  had  wrought  their  accus- 
tomed changes,  and  manifested  on  this  topic  the  mutability  of 
human  opinions.  Many  who  revered  Augustine's  name  had 
renounced  his  theology,  though  others  still  adhered  to  his 
ancient  system. 

France  and  the  Netherlands  encountered  each  other  on  the 
subject  of  Jansenism.  The  latter,  in  general  embraced  this 
theory,  which  the  former  as  generally  rejected.  Pope  Urban, 
but  in  vain,  condemned  the  work  entitled  Augustinus,  as  fraught 
with  several  errors.  Many  misinterpreted  his  manifesto,  and 
still  more  disregarded  its  authority.  The  doctors  of  Louvain, 
like  the  authors  of  Port-Royal,  persevered  in  their  support  of 

1  Paul  V.  n'avoit  encore  rien  decide.  Morery,  3.  568.  Litem  postea  in  BUS 
penso  posuit  Paulus  Papa  V.  Juenin,  5.  188.  Amour,  39,  40.  Calmet,  3.  499 
Bausset,  2.  320 

24 


370  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

the  condemned  system.  The  popish  population  of  Holland 
also,  through  the  agency  and  influence  of  Arnold,  who,  in  1674, 
sought  an  asylum  in  that  country,  embraced  the  same  sentiments. 
The  Dutch  and  Belgian  professors  of  Romanism,  clergy  and 
laity,  continued  in  general,  notwithstanding  the  sentences  of 
popes  and  inquisitions,  to  patronize  Jansenism.1  The  two  na- 
tions in  this  manner,  varied  and  adopted  jarring  systems,  in  the 
precincts  of  an  unerring  communion. 

The  French  were  divided,  though  the  majority  of  its  prelacy 
favoured  Jesuitism.  This  nation,  however,  escaped  the  agita- 
tion of  this  controversy  till  1644  ;  and  hostilities,  till  1649,  were 
confined  to  a  literary  war  of  polemical  writers,  wrhich  was  suc- 
ceeded by  excommunication,  interdict,  incarceration,  banish- 
ment, and  confiscation. 

The  Jansenists  opened  this  wordy  campaign  with  great  spirit 
and  ability.  An  overwhelming  phalanx  of  their  authors,  on 
this  occasion,  seized  the  pen.  Cyran,  Arnold,  Nicole,  Quesnel, 
and  Pascal  displayed  all  the  powers  of  learning  and  eloquence. 
All  these  were  men  of  genius  and  erudition,  and  actuated  with 
the  deepest  detestation  of  Jesuitism.  Pascal,  by  the  poignancy 
of  his  satire,  rendered  the  enemy  ridiculous.  His  Provincial 
Letters  written  against  the  hostile  faction,  are,  says  Voltaire, 
models  of  eloquence  and  ridicule,  and  combine  the  wit  of  Mo- 
liere  with  the  sublimity  of  Bossuet.  The  production,  indeed, 
exhibits  not  only  the  excellence  of  taste  and  style,  but  also  all 
the  force  of  reason  and  raillery.2 

This  party  also  assailed  the  foe  with  another  weapon  of  a 
more  flashy,  but  more  deceitful  kind.  This  consisted  in  '  lying 
wonders,'  which  their  authors  called  thunder-peals,  but  their 
opponents  fictions  and  fanciful  convulsions,  which  dazzled  the 
spectator,  embarrassed  the  adversary,  and  astonished  the  world. 
The  sick,  who  had  been  restored  to  health,  the  blind,  the  deaf, 
the  dumb,  and  the  lame,  who  had  been  enabled  to  see,  hear, 
speak,  and  walk,  demonstrated  to  the  eye  of  superstition  and 
credulity,  the  truth  of  their  heaven-attested  system. 

The  Jesuits  assumed  similar  arms,  and  endeavoured,  as  well 
as  they  could,  to  ply  counteracting  argument  and  invective. 
But  a  miserable  want  of  literary  talent,  at  this  time,  characterized 
this  faction.  Their  whole  array  could  not  supply  a  single  man 
of  genius  and  learning,  capable  of  meeting  those  who,  in  the 
field  of  theological  controversy,  figured  to  such  advantage  in 
the  hostile  ranks.  Though  remarkable,  in  general,  for  prudence 

1  Orta  esse  inter  theologos  Belgii  dessidia.  Labb.  21.  1790.  Les  theobgiens  se 
pariagerent.  Calmet,  Diss.  3.  493.  Morery,  5.  22.  Bausset,  2.  91.  Mem.  273. 

8  Les  Lettres  Provinciates  passent  pour  un  modele  de  nettete,  d' elegance,  et  de 
bon  sens.  Mem.  334.  vol.  9.  94. 


THE    JESUITS    AGAINST    THE    JANSENISTS.  371 

and  caution,  the  infatuated  men,  on  this  occasion,  also  attempted 
miracles  to  confront  those  of  their  opponents  ;  but  were  again 
beaten  by  the  enemy  in  this  kind  of  manufacture.  Their  miracu- 
lous exhibitions  only  afforded  a  laugh  to  the  spectator,  and 
exposed  their  authors  to  contempt.  The  prodigies  of  their 
rivals  alone  were  in  fashion.  But  these  bunglers,  as  they  ap- 
peared, in  jugglery  and  legerdemain,  were  supported  in  the  war 
by  kings,  popes,  anathemas,  excommunication,  exile,  imprison- 
ment, and  the  tangible  logic  of  guns,  bayonets,  and  dragoons, 
when  the  fulminations  of  papal  bulls  followed  the  shock  of 
theological  discussion  and  miraculous  display. 

This  faction,  however,  notwithstanding  their  awkwardness  in 
writing  and  miracles,  had,  at  this  time,  obtained  the  favour  of 
the  Roman  pontiff  and  of  the  French  king  and  clergy.  Their 
present  prosperity  in  the  French  kingdom  formed  a  striking 
contrast  with  their  former  adversity.  The  Parisian  faculty  of 
theology,  as  well  as  the  French  church  and  parliament,  opposed 
this  society  on  its  early  introduction  into  France.  The  Faculty 
in  1554,  accused  them  of  every  atrocity,  of  strife,  wrangling, 
contention,  envy,  and  rebellion,  which  endanger  religion,  trouble 
the  church,  and  tend  to  destruction  rather  than  to  edification, 
and  petitioned  the  parliament  to  expel  them  from  the  kingdom. 
The  parliament,  accordingly,  in  1594,  banished  the  whole 
company  from  the  nation,  as  enemies  of  the  king,  corrupters 
of  youth,  and  disturbers  of  the  public  peace.1 

But  the  society  afterwards  returned,  and  were  patronised  by 
the  French  king  and  clergy,  as  well  as  by  the  Roman  pontiff. 
The  French  prelacy  in  consequence,  to  the  number  of  eighty- 
eight,  favouring  Jesuitism  and  influenced  by  its  partizans,  soli- 
cited his  infallibility,  Pope  Innocent  the  Tenth,  for  his  official 
decision  on  this  momentous  question  of  Jansenism.  But  eleven 
of  the  bishops,  notwithstanding  the  unity  of  the  Romish  com- 
munion, varied  from  their  fellows ;  and  for  several  reasons  which 
they  enumerated,  such  as  the  difficulty  of  the  subject,  the  unfit- 
ness  of  the  time,  and  the  propriety  of  allowing  a  French  synod 
to  finish  a  French  controversy,  they  deprecated  papal  interfe- 
rence. But  the  pontiff  complied  with  the  majority,  and,  in  a 
definitive  sentence  issued  in  1653,  denounced  Jansenism,  which 
had  been  reduced  to-five  propositions,  as  fraught  with  rashness, 
impiety,  scandal,  blasphemy,  falsehood,  and  heresy.2 

1  Querelas,  lites,  dissidia,  contentiones,  eemulationes,  rebelliones,  variasque  scis- 
auras  inducere :  bjs  de  causis,  hanc  societatem  in  religionis  negotio  periculosan* 
videri;  ut  quse  pacem  ecclesiae  conturbet,  et  magis  ad  destructionem  quam  aedifi- 
cationem  pertineat.     Thuanus,  2.  430. 

Us  furent  bannis  du  Roiaume,  comme  corrupteurs  de  la  jeunesse,  perturbateur* 
du  repos  public,  et  ennemis  du  roi.     Daniel,  10.  64.     Limiers,  7.  228. 

2  Labb.  21.  1643,  1644.     Mem.  318.     Moreri,  5.  22      Jnenin,  5.  188.     Bausset^ 
2.  331.     Amour,  67.  425. 

24* 


tJ72  THE    VARIATIONS    OF   POPERY  I 

An  assembly  of  the  French  prelacy  in  1654,  convened  and 
influenced  by  Cardinal  Mazarin,  who  was  an  enemy  of  the 
Jansenists,  unanimously  accepted  the  papal  decision.  The 
same  was  also  sanctioned  by  his  most  Christian  majesty's  royal 
authority.  The  Parisian  Faculty  of  Theology  next  received 
the  bull;  but  not  like  the  clergy,  with  unanimity.  Sixty  of  its 
doctors,  notwithstanding  popish  harmony,  protested  and  ap- 
pealed from  the  pope  to  the  parliament.1 

Pope  Alexander  the  Seventh  next  interposed  his  supreme 
authority.  The  Jansenists  distinguished  between  right  and 
fact,  and  admitted  that  the  five  propositions  were,  by  right, 
condemned ;  but,  in  fact,  were  not  in  the  work  of  Jansenius. 
Alexander  in  1656,  renewed  his  predecessor's  constitution,  and 
extended  it  to  both  right  and  fact.  He  also  prescribed  a  for- 
mulary in  1665,  to  be  signed  by  all  the  French  clergy  :  and  all 
he  declared,  who  should  gainsay  it,  would  incur  the  indignation 
of  Almighty  God  and  the  blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul. 

Four  prelates,  Arnold,  Buzenval,  Pavilion,  and  Coulet,  with 
many  of  the  inferior  clergy,  refused  to  sign,  notwithstanding  the 
pope's  interdict  and  excommunications.  The  nuns  of  Port- 
royal  also  followed  the  example  of  these  bishops.  Dreadful  con- 
fusion ensued.  A  process  was  commenced  for  the  deposition  of 
the  refractory  prelates.  The  nuns  of  Port-royal  were  torn  from 
their  cloisters,  and  the  feeble  captives,  armed  only  with  inno- 
cence and  simplicity,  and  guarded  by  a  squadron  of  soldiery, 
were  conveyed  to  strange  convents,  and  their  nunnery,  once  the 
object  of  their  fondest  attachment  and  now  their  deepest  regret, 
was  razed  from  the  foundation. 

But  Clement  the  Ninth,  in  the  meantime,  proceeded,  not- 
withstanding papal  unity,  to  overthrow  the  acts  of  his  predeces- 
sors, Innocent  and  Alexander.  His  supremacy,  in  1668,  amid 
theological  commotion  and  war,  issued  an  edict  of  pacification. 
He  modified  the  formulary  of  Alexander,  and  permitted  the 
dissatisfied  clergy  to  interpret  his  predecessor's  rescript  in  their 
own  sense,  and  to  subscribe  in  sincerity.  These  accordingly 
signed  for  the  right  in  sincerity,  and  preserved  for  the  fact 
mental  reservation  and  a  respectful  silence.  This  modification, 
which  diffused  joy  through  the  nation,  was  called  the  peace  of 
Clement,  and  continued  with  slight  interruptions  for  thirty-four 
years.2 

Clement  the  Tenth,  who  succeeded  to  the  popedom,  seems 

1  Les  Docteurs  de  Sorbonne  se  trotivant  partagez :  soixante  Docteurs  protesterent 
et  en  appellerent  ail  Parlement.    Mem.  sur.  Pred.  274,  278.    Volt.  9.  89.    Bausset, 
2.  331.     Labb.  21.  1643,  1644.     Moreri,  5.  22.     Juenin,   5.    188,    119.     Lemiers^ 
10.  257. 

2  Clement  s'emfressa  de  donner  la  paix  a  1'eglise.     Moreri,  3.  454.     Bausset,  2 
337-340. 


CONTROVERSY  ON  QUESNEI/S  REFLECTIONS.      373 

to  have  countenanced  the  pacification  effected  by  his  prede- 
cessor. Innocent  the  Eleventh,  hi  s  successor,  not  only  concurred 
in  the  act  of  pacification  and  in  the  repeal  of  Alexander's 
Constitution  and  Formulary,  but  also,  notwithstanding  papal 
unanimity,  probably  adopted  Jansenism  and  certainly  pa- 
tronized its  partizans.  His  holiness,  in  the  opinion  of  many, 
embraced  their  system,  though  formerly  denounced  in  pontifical 
anathemas.  During  his  whole  papacy  he  had  constant  inter- 
course with  its  patrons,  whom  he  honoured  with  his  favour  and 
commendation,  and  supported  with  his  friendship  and  protection. 
The  calumny  and  punishments  which  they  had  endured,  he 
regarded  as  unmerited  and  unjust  persecution.  Their  conduct, 
he  respected,  as  far  superior  to  that  of  their  opponents,  whom 
he  hated,  and  who,  in  return  detested  his  supremacy.  This 
treatment  of  the  persecuted  secured,  as  might  be  expected,  the 
gratitude  and  attachment  which  they  always  manifested  to  this 
pontiff.  Innocent,  in  this  manner,  retracted  the  decisions  of 
former  pontiffs  and  displayed  the  variations  of  Romanism.1 

Clement  the  Eleventh,  in  defiance  of  unity,  overturned  the 
pacification  of  Clement  the  Ninth  and  the  patronage  of  Innocent 
the  Eleventh.  He  also  confirmed  and  renewed  the  constitu- 
tions of  Innocent  the  Tenth  and  Alexander  the  Seventh 
against  Jansenism,  and  denounced  a  work  of  Quesnel's  on  the 
New  Testament.  The  condemnation  of  this  book,  which  he  had 
formerly  praised,  manifested  papal  inconsistency,  and  rekindled 
the  theological  war  in  aggravated  horrors,  through  the  French 
nation. 

Quesnel,  a  priest  of  the  Oratory  and  an  abettor  of  Janse- 
nism, inwove  his  system  with  great  eloquence  and  address  in 
his  moral  reflections  on  the  New  Testament.  This  theory,  in 
his  composition,  which  was  distinguished  by  its  elegance  and 
simplicity,  assumed  the  fairest  aspect  and  the  most  pleasing 
form. 

This  work  on  its  publication  was  eulogized  by  Bossuet, 
Vialart,  Noailles,  Urfe",  the  Parisian  Faculty,  the  French  king, 
and  the  Roman  pontiff.  Bossuet,  Bishop  of  Meaux,  composed 
a  Vindication  of  QuesneFs  Moral  Reflections.  Vialart,  Bishop 
of  Chalons,  respected  for  his  wisdom  and  piety,  having  sub- 
mitted the  work  to  a  careful  examination,  approved,  and,  in 
1671,  recommended  it  to  the  clergy  and  laity  of  his  diocese 

1  Ils  ont  m6tne  accuse  le  Pape  d'etre  Janseniste,  Mem.  376. 

Innocent  XI.  haissoit  les  Jesuites  et  temoignoit  faire  grand  cas  des  Jansenistes. 
Moreri,  5.  128.  On  accusa  ce  pape  de  n'avoir  cesse  d'entretenir  commerce  avec 
tons  les  Jansenistes,  de  les  avoir  comblez  de  ses  graces,  d'avoir  fait  leur  eloge, 
d'etre  declare  leur  protecteur.  Limiers,  7.  226. 

Innocent  XI.  auro'.t  retracte  les  decrets  de  ses  predecesseurs.  Limiers,  7.  227 
228. 


374  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

The  author,  he  attested,  had  long  been  a  disciple  in  the  schoo 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Noailles,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  praised  its 
Catholicism  and  tendency  to  instruct  and  edify  the  pastor  and 
the  people.  Urfe,  bishop  of  Limoges,  requested  the  author  to 
publish  his  Reflections  on  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  in  one 
volume  for  the  use  of  the  clergy  in  the  country.  The  Parisian 
Faculty  vouched  for  its  Catholicism  and  conformity  to  the 
Apostolic  Roman  faith.  Louis  the  French,  king  granted  a 
liberty  of  publication  and  conveyed  the  sanction  of  his  royal 
authority.  The  Roman  pontiff  in  the  presence  of  Renaudot 
extolled  the  work  as  a  matchless  performance,  superior  to  any 
commentary  by  the  theologians  of  Italy.  Its  doctrine,  which 
he  afterwards  branded  with  the  seal  of  reprobation,  he  had 
*brmerly  preached  to  the  Roman  people.1 

But  these  encomiasts  soon  changed  their  note,  and  conderdned 
the  book  which  they  had  approved.  Quesnel's  work  offended 
the  king  and  the  Jesuits.  Its  morality  exhibited  too  spotless  a 
standard  of  purity  for  the  filthy  confraternity,  who,  according 
to  the  witty  Boileau,  lengthened  the  creed  and  shortened  the 
commandments,  or  for  the  French  sovereign,  who  was  actuated 
by  ambition  and  sunk  in  sensualitv.  Its  rigour  in  the  prescrip- 
tion of  duty  presented  a  spectacle  of  horror  to  the  voluptuary 
and  to  the  profane  and  careless,  which  these  accommodating 
moralists  contrasted  with  the  easy  pliancy  of  Jesuitism.  His 
majesty  also  saw,  or  thought  he  saw  in  Jansenism,  a  tendency 
to  Presbyterianism  instead  of  Popery.  Its  faith,  besides,  was 
too  like  Calvinism  for  the  royal  and  Jesuitical  taste.  The  king 
and  the  Jesuits,  therefore,  solicited  and  obtained  its  condemna- 
tion. The  Moral  Reflections  were  denounced  by  their  former 
adulators,  Clement,  Louis,  the  Parisian  University,  and  the 
French  clergy.2 

Clement,  solicited  by  Lewis  and  the  Jesuits,  censured  the 
work,v  on  which,  a  few  years  before,  he  had  lavished  his  fulsome 
flattery.  His  infallibility,  in  1713,  denounced,  in  his  bull 
Unigenitus,  no  less  than  a  hundred  and  one  propositions 
extracted  from  QuesnePs  Annotations.  These,  his  supremacy 

1  Bossuet  composa  la  justification  des  Reflexions  Morales.     Moreri,  7.  13. 

Vialart  lut  cet  ouvrage,  1'approuva,  1'adopta,  etc.  Moreri,  7.  12.  Noailles  Pap- 
prouva.  II  recommanda  &  son  clerge  et  &  son  peuple  la  lecture  de  cet  livre. 
Moreri,  1.  13. 

Noailles  avoit  accorde  son  approbation  aux  Reflexions  sur  le  Nouveau  Testa- 
ment. Limiers,  12.  112.  Bausset,  2.  109. 

Urfe  tit  prier  1'auteur  de  faire  imprimer  ses  Reflexions,  etc.     Moreri,  7.  13. 

Nous  avons  lu  ces  Reflexions  Morales.  Nous  avons  trouve  qu'elles  ne  con 
tiennent  rien  quo  de  conforme  a  la  foi  Catholique.  App.  in  Quesn.  1.  8,  10. 

La  doctrine  de  ses  propositions  se  trouve  dans  les  homelies  que  le  Pape  a  aitre- 
fois  pi  echeesau  peuple  Romain.  Limiers,  12.  115.  Bausset,  2.  108. 

»  Bib  An.  21.  400.     Bausset,  2.  75.     Limiers,  10.  75.  et  12.  113. 


CONTROVERSY    ON    QUESNEL's    REFLECTIONS.  375 

convicted  of  temerity,  captiousness,  scandal,  impiety,  falsehood, 
blasphemy,  sedition,  schism,  and  heresy.  The  Moral  Reflec- 
tions, according  to  his  holiness,  contained  truth  blended  with 
error,  calculated  to  lead  men  to  perdition.1 

Louis,  in  1714,  revoked  the  privilege  of  publication,  which 
he  had  granted,  and  by  which  he  had  impressed  the  work  with 
the  broad  seal  of  his  royal  authority.  Jansenism,  his  majesty 
called  a  novelty,  and  the  Moral  Reflections  a  false  and  danger- 
ous book  :  and  he  interdicted  its  publication  and  circulation 
under  pain  of  exemplary  punishment.2 

The  Parisian  university,  that  had  lauded  the  Catholicism  of 
Quesnel's  work,  accepted  Clement's  constitution,  taxing  the  same 
work  with  blasphemy  and  heresy.  The  learned  doctors  styled 
Jansenism  a  heresy,  and  received  with  submission  the  pontiff's 
condemnation  of  the  once  praised,  but  now  vilified  propositions. 
Truth,  by  such  a  simple  process,  could  be  transubstantiated 
into  falsehood.3 

The  assembly  of  the  French  prelacy,  also,  which  met  in  Paris 
in  1713  and  1714,  accepted  the  papal  constitution  with  submis- 
sion and  respect.  The  holy  bishops  forbade  the  reading  of  the 
Moral  Reflections,  which  they  said  contained  blasphemy  and 
heresy.  This  sentence  they  published  in  a  Pastoral  Instruction, 
which  was  circulated  through  their  dioceses.  The  decision, 
however,  was  not  unanimous.  Forty  accepted,  and  eigh 
rejected  the  bull.  Of  those  who  accepted,  many  added  such 
explanations  and  restrictions  as  might  protect  from  attaint  the 
faith  and  morality  of  Catholicism,  the  rights  of  the  French 
prelacy,  and  the  discipline  and  liberty  of  the  Gallican  church. 
Many  also  who  had  subscribed  afterward  retracted  ;  and  some 
of  these  at  the  point  of  death.4 

The  schism  on  the  pontifical  constitution  extended  not  only 
to  the  Parisian  council,  but  also  to  the  whole  French  clergy. 
These,  on  this  occa.sion,  were  divided  into  two  factions,  the 
ACCEPTANTS  and  RECUSANTS.  The  former,  comprehending  a 
hundred  bishops  with  many  of  the  inferior  clergy,  were  patro- 

1  La  doctrine  de  ces  propositions  qualifiees  de  fausses,  captieuses,  scandaleuses, 
temeraires,  impies,  blasphemataires,  se  trouve  pourtant  dans  les  homelies  que  le 
Pape  a  autre  fois  prechees  au  peuple  Romain.     Limiers,  12. 115.     Labb.  21.  1821. 

2  Nous  devions  commencer  par  revoquer  la  privilege  que  nous  avions  accorde. 
pour  en  permettre  1'  impression.     Labb.  21.  1831,  1132.     Limiers,  12.  180. 

3  Sacra  Facultas  Constitutionem  summa  cum  reverentia   et   obsequio   recepit. 
Labb.  21.  1840. 

4  Elle  accepte  avec  soumession  et  avec  respect.  Labb.  21.  1823.    Quarante  ev6- 
ques  acceptoient  cette  Bulle.     Le  Cardinal  de  Noailles  etplusieurs  autres  evequea 
refuserent  d'accepter  la  Constitution.     Limiers,  12.  117,  118. 

Quelques  eveques  et  docteurs  n'ont  pas  voulu  y  souscrire  sans  explication 
Moreri,  5.  22. 

On  varra  dans  la  suite  les  retractations  de  plusieurs  de  ses  prelats  acceptans. 
Limiers,  12.  118,271. 


376  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

«n 

nized  by  the  pope,  the  king,  and  the  Jesuits.  The  latter, 
including  fifteen  of  the  prelacy,  and  some  of  the  priesthood, 
were  supported,  in  general,  by  the  parliaments  and  the  people  ; 
but  underwent  all  kinds  of  persecution  from  the  pontiff  and 
their  sovereign.  The  pope  and  the  monarch,  indeed,  forced  it, 
in  a  great  measure,  on  the  clergy,  the  Sorbonne,  and  the  great 
body  of  the  people,  who  were  influenced  by  royal  threats  and 
promises.1 

The  French  varied  in  the  explanation  of  the  bull,  as  well  as 
in  its  acceptance.  Of  the  acceptants,  some  received  it  in  purity 
and  simplicity.  Such  thought  it  so  clear  as  to  need  no  illustra- 
tion. Others  accused  it  of  obscurity,  and  accompanied  its 
publication  with  a  world  of  explanations  and  restrictions.  The 
cardinals  Bissy  and  Tencin  loudly  declared  their  utter  inability 
to  understand  it,  and  received  it,  strange  to  say,  because  it 
was  unintelligible.2 

The  Recusants,  differing  indeed  in  words,  agreed  in  sense. 
Harmonious  in  its  condemnation,  this  party  painted  its  meaning 
in  varying  colours.  The  canvass,  under  their  hands,  uniformly 
bore  the  mark  of  reprobation,  and  was  stamped  with  the  broad 
seal  of  heresy.  The  Constitution  Unigenitus,  all  these  avowed, 
inflicted  a  mortal  wound  on  faith  and  morality,  and  enveloped 
in  sacrilegious  censure,  the  canons  of  councils,  and  even  the 
words  of  eternal  truth.  Some  reckoned  it  pointed  against 
Calvinism,  and  some  against  the  Angelic  Doctor  Thomas 
Aquinas,  for  the  purpose  of  overthrowing  his  system.  Others 
thought  his  infallibility  had  become  a  patron  of  Molina,  and 
intended  to  support  the  theory  which  had  been  condemned  by 
pope  Clement  and  the  Congregation  of  Helps.  The  condemned 
propositions  of  Quesnel,  on  the  contrary,  were,  this  faction 
averred,  a  faithful  expression  of  Catholicism,  couched,  in  general, 
as  even  Languet  admitted,  in  the  language  of  Augustine, 
Prosper,  Fulgentius,  and  Leo.3 

1  Les  prelats  du  roiaume  etoient  sont  partagez  BUT  ea  acceptation.     Limiens,  12. 
269. 

Les  menaces  et  les  promesses  ont  6te  emploiees.  La  volonte  du  Prince  a  6t6 
le  motif.  Apol.  1.  269.  Le  Roi  de  France  a  oblig6  par  son  authorite  et  le  clerge 
de  France  et  la  Sorbonne  d'admettre  la  Constitution.  Moreri,  5.  22. 

2  La  Constitution  est  si  claire  qu'elle  n'a  pas  besoin  d'explication.     Limiers,  12. 
119.     Us  y  doaassent  explications,  avec   diverses  modifications   et  restrictions. 
Moreri,  7.  13. 

On  ne  peut  le  recevoir,  comme  les  Cardinaux  de  Bissy  et  de  Tencin,  en  faisant 
hautement  profession  de  ne  le  pas  entendre.  Apol.  1.  169. 

3  La  Constitution  donne  manifestement  atteinte  a  plusieurs  veritez  de  foi  et  de 
morale.     Limiers,  12.  120. 

Les  101  propositions  sont  une  fidelle  expression  de  la  foi  Catholique.  Apol. 
Adv.  7. 

La  Bulle  souffre  les  explanations  les  plus  opposees.  Apol.  ?64.  Les  uns  1* 
entendent  d'une  fa$on  et  les  autres  de  1'autre.  Apol.  1.  131.  On  y  a  trouve  la 
confirmation  du  systeme  de  Molina.  Apolog.  2.  41. 


CONTROVERSY  ON  QUESNEI/S  REFLECTIONS.      377 

The  recusant  clergy  were  as  unanimous  in  their  opposition 
to  its  execution,  as  in  their  condemnation  of  its  contents.  The 
majority  of  the  priesthood  reclaimed  against  it.  The  people, 
the  parliaments,  and,  in  general,  the  universities,  held  it  in 
detestation.  The  Cardinals  Bissy  and  Fleury,  bishops  of 
Meaux  and  Frejus,  two  of  its  defenders,  were  compelled  to 
avow  that  a  hundred  thousand  voices  were  raised  against  it, 
and  that  it  could  not  have  been  treated  with  greater  indignation 
at  Geneva  than  in  France.1 

But  all  opposition  appeared  useless.  The  king  and  the  pope 
urged  its  execution  by  the  dint  of  excommunication,  calumny, 
interdict,  proscription,  banishment,  confiscation,  and  the  bastile. 
Red  hot  anathemas  flashed  from  the  Vatican.  Its  opponents 
were  stigmatized  with  the  name  of  innovators,  rebels,  schis- 
matics, and  heretics.  Some  were  imprisoned,  and  some  banished. 
Absolution  was  refused  to  the  refractory,  and  even  the  sacra- 
ments to  the  dying.  The  departing,  when  life  was  at  the  last 
ebb,  were  frequently  outraged  with  reproach,  instead  of  being 
solaced  with  consolation.  This  treatment  sometimes  hastened 
their  dissolution.  The  fury  of  the  ruthless  enemy  pdrsued  its 
hapless  victims  beyond  the  precincts  of  death.  Their  remains, 
deprived  of  ecclesiastical  burial,  were  excluded  from  the  sepul- 
chre, or  consigned,  with  unbaptized  infants,  to  the  unhallowed 
tomb.2 

But  a  new  revolution,  on  this  question,  was  soon  to  be 
effected  in  the  French  nation.  Louis,  in  1715,  departed  this 
life,  and  the  Duke  of  Orleans  was  appointed  Regent.  The 
royal  declaration,  therefore,  obliging  the  French  prelacy  to 
receive  the  Roman  bull,  was  suppressed.  Tellier,  the  king's 
confessor,  and  an  active  enemy  of  the  refractory  clergy,  was 
loaded  with  public  odium,  and  banished  to  La  Flesche,  then  to 
Bourges,  and  afterward  to  Amiens.  The  exiled  were  recalled, 
and  the  imprisoned  liberated.  Freedom  was  restored  to  the 
clergy,  the  people,  the  parliaments,  and  the  faculty  of  theology. 
Many  of  the  clergy  recanted,  and  the  laity  who  had  generally 
opposed  the  constitution,  enjoyed  a  triumph.  The  parliament 
exulted  in  the  victory.  The  faculty  of  theology,  serving  the 
time  and  changing  with  the  scene,  protested  against  the  bull, 

1  En  France,  les  fideles  la  detestent.  Le  grand  nombre  des  theologiens  la  com- 
battent.  Le  commun  des  premiers  pastem-s  la  rejettent.  Apol.  1.  242. 

Les  Cardinaux  de  Bissy  et  de  Fleury  ont  etc  forces  d'avouer,  que  cent  mille  voix 
a'etoient  elevees  centre  ce  decret,  et  qu'il  n'  eut  pas  etc  traite  plus  indignement  a 
Geueve  qu'il  Fa  ete  en  France.  Apol.  1.  240.  Volt.  9.  110.111. 

2Ceux  qui  refuserent  de  le  signer  furent  interdits  et  excommuniez.  Moreri, 
5.  22. 

Us  fulmiueront  centre  eux  les  anathemes  redoutables.     Apol.  1.  92. 

On  avoit  merae  deja  commence  par  des  proscriptions  et  des  exils  contra  lea 
Recusans.  Limiers,  12.  311,  312.  Apolog.  1.  3 


378  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

and  declared  their  former  decision  a  forgery.  Present  declara- 
tions, through  the  kingdom,  were,  on  this  topic,  opposed  to  for- 
mer decisions,  and  all  things  seemed  to  change,  in  a  communion 
which  vainly  boasts  of  immutability.1 

But  the  pope,  in  his  obstinacy,  published  apostolic  letters,  in 
1717,  separating  from  his  communion  all  who  would  not  accept 
the  constitution.  The  Regent  resolved,  if  possible,  to  restore 
peace.  The  papal  bull  was  modified,  so  as  to  give  general 
satisfaction.  This  modification,  the  parliament,  in  1720, 
registered  with  the  customary  reservations  ;  and  a  general 
pacification  ensued,  which  lasted,  with  few  interruptions,  till 
the  year  1750.2 

New  disturbances  arose  in  France,  in  1750,  on  the  subject 
of  the  Bull  Unigenitus.  This  pontifical  edict,  though  detested 
by  the  parliaments  and  execrated  by  the  people,  was  cherished 
with  fond  attachment  by  the  Archbishop  of  Paris  and  many  of 
the  prelacy  and  inferior  clergy.  This  section  of  the  French 
hierarchy  resolved  to  force  the  constitution,  which  was  the  idol 
of  their  hearts,  on  the  people,  by  refusing  the  communion  and 
extreme  unction  to  all  who  opposed.  The  clergy  obtained  the 
support  of  the  king,  Louis  the  Fifteenth.  Pope  Benedict  also, 
in  a  circular  to  the  French  episcopacy,  urged  the  reception  of 
the  Roman  manifesto.  But  the  parliament  and  the  people 
resisted  with  great  resolution.  Dreadful  confusion  ensued. 
The  king  tried  the  strength  of  the  secular  arm  in  alternately 
banishing  and  recalling  the  parliament  and  some  of  the  most 
active  of  the  prelacy.  The  parliament,  however,  was  firm, 
notwithstanding  banishment  and  the  bastile.  The  people  also 
resisted  the  clergy  with  unshaken  determination.  The  parlia- 
ment and  popular  firmness,  in  the  end,  gained  a  victory  over 
the  king,  the  pope,  and  the  clergy,  who,  after  a  long  and 
desperate  struggle  diversified  by  alternate  triumph  and  defeat, 
submitted  to  a  virtual  repeal  of  the  obnoxious  constitution. 

Jansenism  and  Jesuitism  soon  lost  all  interest  in  the  tranquillity 
and  transactions  which  followed.  The  Jansenists  were  no  longer 
supported  by  the  pen  of  an  Arnold,  a  Nicole,  a  Pascal,  and  a 

1  Louis   etant  mort,   la   declaration   fut    supprimee.     Moreri,    7.    13.     Volt.    9 
112,  113. 

Lea  exiles  ont  et6  rappellez.  La  liberte  a  ete  rendue  aux  parlemens  et  ax 
eveques.  Limiers,  12.  311. 

La  Faculte  de  Theologie  de  Paris  declara  que  le  decret  du  cinquieme  Mars  1714. 
etoit  faux.  Moreri,  7.  13.  Castel,  320. 

On  les  vit  opposer  a  ces  decrets  des  decrets  contraires.  Moreri,  7.  13.  Les 
choses  ont  entierement  change  de  face.  Voila  tout  d'  un  coup  un  grand  changement. 
Limiers,  12.  312.  Mem.  de  la  Regen.  1.  40. 

2  Le   Pape  a  fait  public   des  Lettres  apostoliques,  par  lesquelles  il  separe  de  sa 
communion  tons  ceux  qui  n'ont  pas  reqn,  on   qui  ne  re^evront  pas  a  1'avenir,  sa 
constitution.     Limiers,  12.  314.     Volt.  9.  118 


EFFECTS    OF    THE    JANSENIST    CONTROVERSY.  379 

Quesnel.  These  had  departed,  and  given  place  to  far  inferior 
men.  Peace  divested  their  controversial  writings  of  all  popu- 
larity. Many,  indeed,  in  the  learned  professions  and  in  the 
intelligent  class  of  society,  still  retain  the  leading  principles  of 
Jansenism.  But  the  denomination,  as  a  religious  body,  can 
hardly  be  said  to  exist. 

The  Jesuits  also,  on  the  return  of  peace,  sunk  into  disrepute. 
The  loss  of  credit  at  the  French  court,  which  this  faction  had 
long  enjoyed,  was  attended  with  the  contempt  of  the  prelacy, 
the  hostility  of  parliament,  and  the  detestation  of  the  people  : 
and  all  these  were  only  a  prelude  to  their  final  expulsion  from 
the  French  kingdom  for  dishonesty  in  trade,  and  for  the  immo- 
rality of  their  institution.  The  society  committed  fraud  in 
certain  commercial  transactions,  and  the  parliament,  their  ancient 
enemy,  seized  the  opportunity  of  prosecuting  them  for  the 
offence.  During  these  transactions  the  company  were  compelled 
to  produce  their  secret  institution,  embodying  the  rules  of  their 
order.  This,  it  was  found,  contained  maxims  subversive  of 
all  civil  government  and  moral  principle.  The  document, 
contrary,  at  once,  to  the  safety  of  the  king  and  to  the  laws  of 
the  nation,  completed  their  ruin.  Their  colleges  were  seized, 
and  their  effects  confiscated.  The  king,  ashamed  or  afraid  to 
patronize  such  a  fraternity,  not  only  withdrew  his  protection, 
but  expelled  the  whole  order,  by  a  solemn  edict  from  the 
kingdom. 

So  terminated  the  eventful  existence  of  Jesuits  and  Jansenists 
in  France.  The  two  rival  factions  arose  nearly  at  the  same 
time,  flourished  for  a  short  period,  entertained  diametrically 
hostile  principles  in  the  bosom  of  the  same  community,  warred 
during  their  continuance,  with  deadly  hatred,  and  then,  as  if  to 
display  the  mutations  of  Romanism,  and  indeed  the  vicissitudes 
of  all  earthly  things,  sum£  into  oblivion,  or  were  banished  the 
nation. 

Such  were  the  dissensions  of  Franciscans,  Rhemists,  Molin- 
ists,  Jesuits,  and  Jansenists.  Theologian,  in  these  spiritual 
wars,  encountered  theologian,  pope  opposed  pope,  and  synod 
assailed  synod.  Kings,  pontiffs,  statesmen,  and  parliaments 
entered  the  field,  and  fought  with  fury  in  the  theological  cam- 
paigns. The  child  rose  against  the  parent,  and  the  parent 
against  the  child.  Fellow  citizens  conceived  against  each 
other  dreadful  suspicions  and  mortal  hatred.  The  shock  of 
conflicting  factions  in  the  empire  of  the  popedom  convulsed 
the  troubled  nations,  which  were  the  scene  of  action.  One 
volume  of  noisy  controversy  was  heaped  on  another.  The 
system  which  one  party  styled  truth  and  Catholicism,  the  other 
called  error  and  heresy.  Each  treated  its  opponent  as  the 


380  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

abettor  of  schism  and  blasphemy,  while  a  deluge  of  lancour 
and  bitterness,  which  rent  asunder  the  ties  of  Christian  charity, 
was  poured  on  insulted  Christendom.  The  channels  of 
philanthropy  were  closed,  and  the  flood-gates  of  malevolence, 
set  wide  open,  discharged  their  pestilential  torrents  on  dis- 
tracted man,  contending,  in  many  instances,  for  a  shadow. 
Mutual  execration,  a  weapon  unknown  in  every  reformed 
communion,  diversified  the  popish  war,  and  carried  damnation 
into  the  adverse  ranks.  Protestantism,  from  its  rise  till  the 
present  day,  affords  no  such  example  of  rage  and  division. 
Bossuet,  aided  by  learning  and  exaggeration,  could  supply  no 
scene  of  equal  vengeance  and  variety  in  all  the  annals  of  the 
Reformation. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

fARIETY      OF     OPINIONS — SCRIPTURAL     AND     TRADITIONAL     ARGUMENTS — ELEMENTS 

ACCOUNTED    SIGNS,    FIGURES,    AND    EMBLEMS RETAINED     THEIR    OWN     SUBSTANCE 

NOURISHED    THE    HUMAN    BODY SIMILAR    CHANGE    IN    BAPTISM    AND    REGENERA- 
TION  CAUSES    WHICH    FACILITATED    THE    INTRODUCTION    OF    TRAN8UBSTANTIATION 

HISTORY    OF    TRANSUBSTANTIATION PASCHASIUS BERENGARIUS DIVERSITY    OF 

OPINIONS — DIVERSITY     OF     PROOFS — ABSURDITY     OF     TRANSUBSTANTIATION — CREA- 
TION   OF    THE    CREATOR ITS    CANNIBALISM. 

TRANSUBSTANTIATION,  in  the  language  of  Romanism,  consists 
in  the  transmutation  of  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  communion, 
into  the  body  and  blood,  and  by  connexion  and  concomitance, 
into  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord.  The  whole  substance 
of  the  sacred  elements  is,  according  to  this  chimera,  changed 
into  the  true,  real,  numerical,  and  integral  Emmanuel,  God 
and  Man,  who  was  born  of  Mary,  existed  in  the  world,  suffered 
on  the  cross,  and  remains  immortal  and  glorious  in  heaven. 
The  host,  therefore,  under  the  form  of  bread,  contains  the 
mediator's  total  and  identical  body,  soul,  and  Deity.  Nothing 
of  the  substance  of  bread  and  wine  remains  after  consecration. 
All,  except  the  accidents,  is  transformed  into  the  Messiah,  in 
his  godhead,  with  all  its  perfections,  and  in  his  manhood  with 
all  its  component  parts,  soul,  body,  blood,  bones,  flesh,  nerves, 
muscles,  veins,  and  sinews.1 

Our  Lord,  according  to  the  same  absurdity,  is  not  only  whole 
in  the  whole,  but  also  whole  in  every  part.  The  whole  God 
and  man  is  comprehended  in  every  crumb  of  the  bread,  and 
in  every  drop  of  the  wine.  He  is  entire  in  the  bread,  and 
entire  in  the  wine,  and  in  every  particle  of  each  element.  He 
is  entire  without  division  in  countless  hosts  on  numberless 

1  Credimus  panem  convert!  in  earn  carnem,  quse  in  cruce  pependit.  Lanfranc. 
243.  Sint  quatuor  ilia,  caro,  sanguis,  anima,  et  Divinitas  Christi.  Labbe,  20.  619. 

Domini  corpus,  quod  natum  ex  virgine  in  coelis  sedet  ad  dextram  Patris,  hoc 
sacramento  contineri.  Divinitatem  et  totam  humanam  naturam  complectitur.  Cat. 
Trid.  122.  125. 

Continetur  totum  corpus  Christi,  scilicit,  ossa,  nervi  et  alia.  Aquin.  iii.  2.  76, 
c.  1.  Comprehendens  carnem,  ossa,  nervos,  &c.  Dens,  5.  276, 


382  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

altars.  He  is  entire  in  heaven,  and  at  the  same  time,  entire  OH 
the  earth.  The  whole  is  equal  to  a  part,  and  a  part  equal  to 
the  whole.  The  same  substance  may,  at  the  same  time,  be  in 
many  places,  and  many  substances  in  the  same  place.  This 
sacrament,  in  consequence  of  these  manifold  contradictions,  is, 
says  Ragusa,  '  a  display  of  Almighty  power ;'  while  Faber 
calls  transubstantiation  '  the  greatest  miracle  of  omnipotence.'1 

The  species,  in  this  system,  exist  without  a  subject.  The 
substance  is  transformed  into  flesh  and  blood,  while  the  acci- 
dents, such  as  colour,  taste,  touch,  smell,  and  quantity,  still 
remain.  The  taste  and  smell  continue  without  any  thing 
tasted  or  smelled.  Colour  remains ;  but  nothing  to  which  it 
belongs,  and,  of  course,  is  the  external  show  of  nonentity. 
Quantity  is  only  the  hollow  shadow  of  emptiness.  But  these 
appearances,  notwithstanding  their  want  of  substance,  can,  it 
seems,  be  eaten,  and  afford  sustenance  to  man  and  nourish  the 
human  body.2 

Such  is  the  usual  outline  of  transubstantiation.  The  absur- 
dity resembles  the  production  of  some  satirist,  who  wished  to 
ridicule  the  mystery,  or  some  visionary,  who  had  laboured  to 
bring  forth  nonsense.  A  person  feels  humbled  in  having  to 
oppose  such  inconsistency,  and  scarcely  knows  whether  to 
weep  over  the  imbecility  of  his  own  species,  or  to  vent  his 
bursting  indignation  against  the  impostors,  who,  lost  to  all  sense 
of  shame,  obtruded  this  mass  of  contradictions  on  man.  His* 
tory,  in  all  its  ample  folios,  displays,  in  the  deceiving  and  the 
deceived,  no  equal  instance  of  assurance  and  credulity. 

This  statement  of  transubstantiation  is  couched  in  general 
terms,  in  which  its  patrons  seem  to  hold  the  same  faith.  The 
doctrine,  expressed  in  this  manner,  obtains  the  assent  of  every 
professor  of  Romanism.  All  these  agree  in  principles,  but,  in 
many  respects,  differ  in  details.  This  agreement  and  difference 
appeared  in  a  striking  light,  at  the  celebrated  council  of  Trent. 

1  Non  solus  sub  toto,  sed  totus  sub  qualibet  parte.  Canisius,  4.  468.  Bin.  9. 
380.  Crabb.  2.  946, 

Ubi  pars  est  corporis,  est  to  turn.  Gibert,  3.  331.  Christus  totus  et  integer  sub 
qualibet  particula  divisionis  perseverat.  Canisius,  4.  818. 

Totus  et  integer  Christiis  eub  panis  specie  et  sub  quavis  ipsius  speciei  parte, 
item  sub  vini  specie  et  sub  ejus  partibus,  existit.  Labb.  20.  32. 

Idem  corpus  sit  simul  in  pluribus  locis.  Faber.  1.  128.  Paolo,  1.  530.  Possnnt 
esse  duo  corpora  quanta  et  plura  in  eodem  spatio.  Faber,  1.  136.  Corpus  non 
expellat  praeexistens  corpus.  Faber.  i.  137. 

Hoc  sacramentum  continet  miraculum  maximum,  quod  pertinet  ad  omnipoten- 
tiam.  Faber,  1.  126.  Divina  omnipotentia  ostenditur.  Ragus.  in  Canisius,  4. 818. 

*  In  sacramento  altaris,  manere  accidentia  sine  subjecto.     Faber,  1.  202. 

Nutrit  et  saturat  eodom  modo  quo  alius  panis.  Faber,  1.  219.  Non  sunt  sub- 
stantiee:  habent  tamen  virtutem  substantise.  Aquinas,  iii.  2.  71.  A.  vi. 

Les  accidens  par  1'  operation  miraculeuse  de  la  toute-puissance  Divine  produi- 
•ent  les  memes  effete  que  la  substance.  Godeau,  5.  378. 


ROMISH    ACCOUNT    OF    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  383 

The  doctors  of  that  assembly  wrangled  on  this  topic,  in  tedious 
and  nonsensical  jargon.  An  attempt  was  made,  but  in  vain, 
to  satisfy  all  in  the  composition  of  the  canons.  None  were 
pleased.  The  dogma,  in  consequence,  had,  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  to  be  propounded  in  few  words  and  general  expres- 
sions :  and  this  stratagem  effected  an  ostensible  unanimity.1 

The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans  differed  at  the  council  of 
Trent,  as  they  do  still,  on  an  essential  point  of  this  theory. 
The  former,  following  the  common  opinion,  maintain  the  anni- 
hilation of  the  substance  of  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine, 
by  their  conversion  into  our  Lord's  body  and  blood.  The 
latter,  on  the  contrary,  verging  on  heresy,  denied  this  annihila- 
tion and  conversion.  The  substance  of  the  sacramental 
elements,  in  this  system,  remains  unchanged,  while  the 
substance  of  our  Lord's  body  and  blood  takes  its  place.  The 
one  succeeds  to  the  room  of  the  other,  and  both,  as  neither 
possesses  quantity  or  extension,  occupy  the  same  space.2  This 
would  appear  to  trench  on  heresy,  and  would  require  a  skilful 
metaphysician  to  distinguish  it  from  Lutheran  consubstantiation. 

But  our  Lord,  say  the  Franciscans,  in  passing  in  this  manner 
from  heaven  to  earth,  proceeds,  not  by  successive  movements, 
but  by  instantaneous  change.  His  passage  occupies  no  time. 
He  is  on  the  altar  as  soon  as  he  leaves  the  sky  ;  or  rather,  he 
obtains  the  one  position,  without  departing  from  the  other.3 
Both  factions,  at  Trent,  thought  their  statements  very  clear,  and 
each  wondered  at  the  other's  nonsense  and  stupidity.  The 
Franciscan  faction,  if  nonsense  admit  of  degree  or  comparison, 
is  entitled  to  the  praise  of  superior  absurdity.  The  idea  of  two 
material  substances  being  at  the  same  time  in  the  same  place, 
and  of  a  human  being  coming  from  heaven  to  earth,  without 
intermediate  time  or  motion,  seems  to  merit  the  palm  of 
balderdash. 

1  Mais  elles  ne  purent  contenter  pesonne,  on  resolut  dans  la  congregation  gen6- 
rale  d'user  de  moins  de  paroles  qu'  serait  possible  dans  1'  exposition  de  la  doctrine, 
et  de  se  servir  d'  expressions  si  generates,  qu' elles  pussent  s'accommoder  aux  sen- 
timens  des  deux  parties.     Paolo,  1.  531. 

2  Les  Franciscains  disoient  que  la  substance  du  pain  et  du  vin  n'est  point  anean- 
tie,  et  ne  fait  que  changer  de  lieu.     Couray,    in   Paolo,    1.   531.     Corpus   Christi 
succedit  loco  substantial  panis  et  supplet  vicem.     Faber,  iv.  D.  10.  Q.  1. 

Non  que  la  substance  du  corps  de  Jesus  Christ  se  forme  de  la  substance  du  pain, 
comme  le  soutenoient  les  Dominicains ;  mais  parce  que  la  premiere  succede  &  In 
seconde.  Paolo,  1.  530. 

Non  fit  praesens  Corpus  Christi  expellendo  substantiam  panis,  neque  enim  sub- 
etantia  panis  mutatur  de  loco  ad  locum.  Faber,  1.  132. 

Corpus  Christi  non  fit  praesens  per  istam  conversionem  substantialem.  Faber, 
i.  129. 

3  Les  Franciscains  soutenoient  qu'il  y  va,  non  plus  par  un  mouvement  succesif, 
mais  par  un  changement  d'un  instant,  qui  lui  fait  occuper  un   second  lieu   sans 
sortir  du  premier.     Paolo,  1.  530. 

Corpus  Christi  fit  prsesans  ibi  non  per  motum  localem.  Faber,  iv.  D.  10.  p.  128. 
Non  pertrausit  omnia  media.  Canisias,  4.  485. 


384  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

A  third  party  differ  from  the  Dominicans  and  Franciscans 
The  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine,  in  the  theology  of  this 
faction,  neither  remains,  as  say  the  Franciscans,  nor  changes, 
according  to  the  Dominicans,  but  ceases  to  exist  either  by  anni- 
hilation, resolution,  or  corruption.  The  substance  of  the  sacra- 
mental elements  is  reduced  to  nothing,  or  by  analysis  or  putre- 
faction, returns  to  its  former  principles.  This  opinion,  says 
Faber,  was  held  by  Henry,  Cajetan,  and  many  other  abettors 
of  Catholicism.1 

A  fourth  class,  in  this  unerring  and  harmonious  communion, 
varies  from  all  these  speculations  on  the  substance  of  the  sacra- 
mental elements.  According  to  these  theorists,  the  body  and 
blood  of  Jesus,  and  something  of  the  bread  and  wine  after  con- 
secration, remains  united.  Both  exist  together  in  the  host. 
This  notion  was  patronized  by  Innocent  the  Third,  as  well  as  by 
many  other  theologians,  such  as  Paris,  Rupert,  Aegidius,  Du- 
randus,  Goifrid,  Mirandula,  and  Soto.2 

A  fifth  division  within  the  precincts  of  Popery,  entertains  a 
theory  different  from  all  the  former.  Emmanuel's  existence  in 
the  host,  according  to  these  theologians,  is  the  action  of  his 
body,  effectively  supporting  the  species.  His  presence  is 
nothing  but  the  operation  of  his  substance.  He  is  in  the 
species  in  a  spiritual  and  angelic  manner,  but  not  under  the 
modality  of  quantity.3  His  real  substantial  presence,  there- 
fore, degenerates,  in  this  scheme,  into  mere  spiritual  action  or 
operation. 

Such  are  the  variations  of  popery  on  our  Lord's  sacramental 
substance  in  soul  and  body.  But  Romish  diversity  does  not  end 
on  the  topic  of  substance,  which  refers  to  both  soul  and  body,  to 
both  matter  and  mind ;  but  extends  to  the  separate  consideration 
of  each,  to  the  distinct  state  of  his  corporeal  and  mental  exis- 
tence in  the  communion.  One  division  in  the  papal  connexion, 
allows  his  sacramental  body  all  the  chief  properties  of  matter, 
such  as  quantity,  extension,  visibility,  motion,  and  locality  :  all 
which  a  second  section  deny.  A  third  party  ascribes  to  his  soul 
in  the  host  the  principal  powers  and  operations  of  mind,  such  as 
understanding,  will,  sensation,  passion,  and  action :  while  this 
theory  is  rejected  by  a  fourth  faction.  The  chief  warriors  who 
fought  in  these  bloodless  battles,  were  the  schoolmen,  who  have 


1  Substantia  panis  non  manet,  nee  tamen  couvertitur,  sed  desinit  esse  vel  per 
annihilationem,  vel  per  resolutionem,  &c.  Faber,  iv.  3. 

*  Panis  manet  in  eucharistia  post  consecrationem,  et  tamen  simul  cum  ipso  vere 
est  corpus  Christi.  Aliquod  substantial  panis  et  vini  remanere.  Faber,  iv.  3.  p. 
loo« 

3  Ejus  praesentia  nihil  aliud  esse  videtur  quam  ejusdem  substantia?  actio  vel 
operatic.  Faber,  i.  133. 


385 

displayed  admirable  skill  and  heroism  in  the  alternate  attack 
and  defence  of  subtilized  folly  and  absurdity. 

One  divisioti  allows  our  Lord's  body  on  the  altar  all  the  chief 
properties  of  matter,  such  as  quantity,  extension,  visibility, 
motion,  locality,  and  extension.  Jesus,  according  to  these  spec- 
ulations, is,  in  the  host,  formed  of  parts,  occupies  space,  and  has 
length,  breadth,  and  thickness.  He  can  be  touched,  felt,  and 
broken.  He  can  also  be  seen,  say  some,  by  men  on  earth,  or 
only,  as  others  allege,  by  spirits  in  heaven.  This  view,  which, 
though  the  more  rational,  is  contrary  to  the  common  opinion, 
has  been  maintained  by  Scotus,  Alensis,  Bonaventura,  Richar- 
dus,  and  their  followers,  who  charge  their  opponents,  if  not  w^-th 
heresy,  at  least  with  rashness  and  absurdity.1 

A  second  section  in  the  Romish  communion  divests  our  Lord's 
sacramental  body  of  the  principal  properties  of  matter.  Jesug 
in  the  host,  say  these  theologians,  occupies  no  place,  and  pos- 
sesses no  locality.  He  fills  no  space.  He  has  no  parts,  no 
length,  breadth,  or  thickness.  He  exists  not  in  the  modality  of 
quantity,  but  of  substance,  and,  in  consequence,  has  no  exten- 
sion, figure,  situation,  colour,  or  dimensions.  He  cannot  be 
seen,  touched,  felt,  tasted,  or  broken.  He  is  motionless,  or,  at 
least,  cannot  be  moved  by  created  power.2 

From  these  premises,  many  curious  conclusions  have  been 
deduced.  One  part  of  the  sacramental  elements  may  enter  an- 
other, without  any  distinction,  and  all  the  parts  by  introsuscep- 
tion,  exist  in  the  same  place.  Emmanuel's  eyes,  as  he  lies  on 
the  altar,  are  in  his  hands,  and  his  hands  in  his  feet.  His  mouth 
is  not  more  distant  from  his  feet,  than  from  his  eyes.  His  nose 
is  not  separated  from  his  chin,  his  neck  from  his  belly,  nor  his 
head  from  his  hands.  He  is  motionless,  though  the  host  be 
moved  ;  and,  therefore,  his  position  can  neither  be  changed  nor 
inverted.  He  neither  stands,  leans,  nor  rests,  though  he  may 
assume  these  postures  in  heaven.  However  the  wafer  be  turned, 
he  cannot  be  placed  with  his  head  above  and  his  feet  beneath, 
or  on  his  back  or  his  face.3  This,  in  all  its  ridiculousness  and 

1  Faber,  1.  168.     Paolo,  1.  530.     Aquinas,  3.  361. 

2  Corpus  Christ!  non  est  in  loco.     Aquinas,   3.   350.     A   nullo   oculo  corporali 
corpus  Christi  potestvideri,  prout  est  in  hoc  Sacramento.     Aquia.  8.  365. 

Corpus  Christi,  ut  est  hie,  non  potest  tangi,  nee  approximari,  nee  est  coloratura, 
f'aber,  1.  178.  Du  Pin,  3.  475. 

Les  Franciscains  soutenoient  que  dans  le  sacrement  la  substance  n'occupe  point 
de  lieu.  Paolo,  1.  530. 

3  Subintratio  unius  partis  ad  alteram  absque  distinctione  partim.     Faber,  1.  136. 
Nasus  non  distat  ab  oculis  et  caput  a  ventre.     Non  magis  distat  a.  pede  quam  ab 

oculis.     Oculi  sint  in  manibus,  manus  in  pedibus.     Faber,  1.  134,  137. 

Corpus  Christi  non  habet  differentias  positionis  in  Sacramento,  ut  quod  caput  sit 
sursum  et  pedes  deorsum.  Quocunque  modo  vertatur  hostia,  non  est  corpus  supi- 
num  vel  resupinum.  Si  in  coelo  stat,  recumbit,  et  sedet,  non  est  necesse  quod 
recumbat,  sedeat,  et  stet  in  sacramento.  Faber,  i.  137,  166. 

25 


386  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

absurdity  is  the  common  opinion,  and  was  adopted  by  the 
Franciscans,  as  well  as  by  Aquinas,  Varro,  Durandus,  Alliaco, 
Ocham,  Soto,  Paludan,  Bonaventura,  Gabriel,  Cajetan,  and, 
indeed,  by  the  generality  of  popish  theologians. 

A  third  party  ascribes  to  his  soul  in  the  sacrament,  all  the 
principal  powers  and  operations  of  mind.  According  to  these, 
he  possesses,  like  other  men,  life,  sense,  understanding,  will, 
sensation,  and  passion.  He  has  the  same  intellect  and  sensation 
on  the  altar  as  in  heaven.  He  can,  like  another  human  being, 
see,  hear,  feel,  move,  act,  and  suffer.  Some  have  assigned  him 
in  this  situation,  still  more  extraordinary  endowments.  These 
make  him  sometimes  sing,  and  warm  the  officiating  priest's 
hands,  which,  in  return,  warm  him  in  the  consecrated  elements.1 
Such  was  the  opinion  of  the  nominalists,  as  well  as  of  Ocham, 
Major,  Scotus,  and  their  numerous  followers. 

A  fourth  faction,  manifesting  the  diversity  of  Romanism, 
rejects  this  theory.  These  strip  the  Son  of  God,  as  he  exists 
in  the  communion,  of  intellect,  sensation,  action,  passion,  motion, 
animal  life,  and  external  senses.  Like  a  dead  body,  he  is,  on 
the  altar,  incapable  of  speaking,  hearing,  seeing,  tasting,  feeling, 
and  smelling.  He  has  spiritual,  without  corporal  life,  as  the 
moon  IMS  the  light  of  the  sun  without  its  heat.  This  idea  was 
entertained  by  Rupert  in  the  twelfth  century.  Jacobel,  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  embraced  a  similar  opinion,  which  he  sup- 
ported by  the  authority  of  Augustine,  Jerome,  Ambrosius, 
Anselm,  Paschasius,  and  the  schoolmen.  This,  says  Mabillon, 
is  the  common  opinion  held  by  the  schoolmen,  and,  in  general, 
by  the  ancient  and  modern  professors  of  popery.2 

Transubstantiation  is  a  variation  from  Scriptural  antiquity. 
The  absurdity  has  no  foundation  in  revelation.  Its  advocates, 
indeed,  for  the  support  of  their  opinion,  quote  our  Lord's  ad- 
dress to  the  citizens  of  Capernaum,  recorded  by  the  sacred  his- 
torian John.  The  Son  of  God,  on  that  occasion,  mentioned  the 
eating  of  his  flesh,  and  the  drinking  of  his  blood;  and  some 
friends  of  Romanism,  chiefly  among  the  moderns,  have  pressed 
this  language  into  the  service  of  their  absurd  system. 

The  metaphor,  used  on  this  occasion,  is  indeed  of  that  bold 

1  Operatic  intellectus  et  voluntatis  potestinesse  Christo  ut  fn  eucharistia.  Corpus 
Christi  est  capax  harum  sensationum  et  passionum.  Faber,  1.  167. 

Christum  in  sacramento  posse  videre,  canere,  audire,  et  facere  et  pati  omnia,  quae 
caeteri  homines  pati  et  agere.  Ut  est  in  sacramento,  posse  propriam  manum  sacerdo- 
tum  calefacere  et  ab  ipsa  califieri.  Faber.  1.  178. 

8  Christum  ipsum  in  hoc  sacramento,  nullam  posse  habere  sensationem  activam 
neque  passivam.  Est  impassibile  naturaliter  ipsum  habere  aliquam  actionem  vel 
passionem.  Faber,  1.  177,  178, 

Non  aliam  vitam  esse  in  copore  Domini  quam  spiritualem.     Mabillon,  4.  5G2. 

Nunc  plerique  theologorum  sentiunt,  Christum  in  eucharistia  nullas  exercere  sen- 
•uum  externorum  functiones,  sed  sacrum  ejus  corpus,  mortuum  modo,  in  sacramentc 
exiatere.  Mabilloii,  5.  563  Lenfant.  2.  214 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION    UNSORIPTURAL.  387 

kind  which  is  common  in  the  eastern  style ;  but  which  is  less 
frequent  in  western  language  :  and  which,  to  Europeans,  seems 
carried  to  the  extreme  of  propriety.  Nothing,  however,  is  more 
usual  in  the  inspired  volume,  than  the  representation  of  mental 
attention  and  intellectual  attainments  by  oral  manducation  and 
corporeal  nourishment.  The  actions  of  the  mind  are  signified 
by  those  of  the  body.  The  soul  of  the  transgressor,  says  Solo- 
mon "  shall  eat  violence."  Jeremiah  ate  the  words  of  God. 
Ezekiel  caused  his  belly  to  eat  "  a  roll  of  a  book."  John  ate 
the  little  book,  which  was  sweet  in  his  mouth,  and  bitter  in  his 
belly.  Jesus,  to  the  women  of  Samaria,  spoke  of  men  drinking 
living  water,  which,  as  a  fountain,  would  spring  up  into  ever- 
lasting life.  He  also  represented  the  reception  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  the  Jews,  by  the  act  of  drinking  living  water.  These 
are  only  a  few  specimens  of  this  kind  of  speech,  taken  from 
Revelation.  Eating  and  drinking,  therefore,  though  acts  of  the 
body,  are  often  used  as  metaphors,  to  signify  the  operations  of 
the  mind  in  believing.  Common  sense,  then,  whose  suggestions 
are  too  seldom  embraced,  would  dictate  the  application  of  this 
trope  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Messiah's  language  in  John's 
gospel.  Cajetan  accordingly  avows,  that  *  our  Lord's  expres- 
sion there  is  not  literal,  nor  is  intended  to  signify  sacramental 
meat  and  drink.'  Augustine  and  Pius  the  Second,  in  their 
works,  as  well  as  Villetan  in  the  council  of  Trent,  are  armed 
with  all  its  authority,  represented  it  as  a  figure  or  metaphor.'1 

This  metaphorical  signification  has,  in  general,  been  patron- 
ised in  the  Romish  communion  by  doctors,  saints,  popes,  and 
councils.  Some  indeed,  to  show  the  diversity  of  Romanism, 
have  adhered  to  the  literal  meaning.  But  these,  compared  with 
the  others,  have  been  few  and  contemptible.  The  figurative 
is  the  common  interpretation,  and  has  been  sanctioned,  not  only 
by  saints  and  pontiffs,  but  also,  as  shall  appear  by  the  general 
councils  of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent,  in  all  their  infallibility. 
Mauricius,  supported  by  the  authority  of  the  Constantian  assem- 
bly, declared  this  '  the  authentic  exposition  of  holy  doctors,  and 
approved  explanations.  These  commonly  understood  it  to  sig 
nify,  not  the  sacramental,  but  the  spiritual  reception  of  our 
Lord's  body  and  blood.'  Ragusa,  in  the  council  of  Basil, 
declined,  on  account  of  its  tediousness,  to  enumerate  '  the  seve- 
ral doctors  who  explain  it  principally  and  directly  to  imply 
spiritual  manducation.'  Villetan,  at  Trent,  said  to  the  assem- 

1  Prov.  xiii.  2.  Jer.  xv.  16.  Bzek.  ii.  9.  John  iv.  10,  14,  and  vii.  37—39. 
Cor.  x.  3,  4. 

Non  loquitur  ibi  Dominus  ad  literam  de  sacramental!  cibo  et  potu.  Cajetau,  T.  3. 
Trnct  2.  c.  1. 

Figura  est.  Augustin,  3.  52.  Jesus  Christ  parloit  alors  figurement,  Aen.  Syl. 
Ep.  130,  Est  metaphora.  Villet.  in  Labb  20,  615. 


888  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY t 

bled  Fathers,  '  you  will  wonder,  I  well  know,  at  the  singular 
agreement  of  all  in  this  interpretation.  The  universal  church, 
you  may  say,  has  understood  this  passage  ever  since  its  pro- 
mulgation, to  mean  spiritual  eating  and  drinking  by  a  living 
faith.'1 

Mauricius,  on  this  occasion,  wrote  and  published  by  the 
command  and  authority  of  the  Constantine  council.  Ragusa 
spoke  under  correction  of  the  Basilian  assembly,  and  without 
any  contradiction.  Villetan,  at  Trent,  spoke  in  a  general 
congregation,  and  with  its  entire  approbation.  The  comments 
of  these  theologians,  therefore,  have  been  sanctioned  by  the 
three  general  unerring  councils :  and  these,  in  all  their  infallibility, 
together  with  a  multitude  of  fathers,  saints,  doctors,  and  popes, 
supply  the  following  statements. 

The  passage  in  John's  gospel  cannot  refer  to  the  communion  ; 
for  it  was  not  yet  instituted.  Such  is  the  argumant  of  Cardinal 
Cajetan  and  Pope  Pius  II.  Our  Lord,  says  the  Cardinal, 
'  spoke  of  faith ;  as  he  had  not  yet  appointed  the  sacrament. 
This,  Jesus  ordained  at  Jerusalem,  the  night  in  which  he  was 
betrayed.'  According  to  the  pope,  *  The  words  whoso  eateth 
and  drinketh  are  not  in  the  future,  but  in  the  present  time  : 
and  the  expression,  therefore,  could  not,  by  anticipation,  refer 
to  futurity.'  The  inspired  diction  would,  on  this  supposition, 
relate  to  a  nonentity.2 

The  language  recorded  by  John  will  not  agree  with  sacramental 
communion.  The  instructions  of  our  Lord,  on  that  occasion, 
will  not  quadrate  with  the  opinions  entertained,  on  this  topic, 
by  the  advocates  of  transubstantiation.  The  Son  of  God  sus- 
pended the  possession  of  eternal  life  on  the  eating  of  his  flesh 
and  the  drinking  of  his  blood.  This  was  the  condition,  without 
which  man  could  have  no  life.  None  can  possess  spiritual  life, 
unless,  in  this  sense,  they  eat  and  drink  his  body  and  blood. 
The  manducation  mentioned  by  the  apostle,  is  necessary  for 
salvation.  This,  if  it  referred  to  the  sacrament,  would  exclude 
all  infants,  though  partakers  of  Christian  baptism.  The  suppo- 

1  Exponatursecundum  expositiones  authenticas  sanctorum  Doctorum  et  approba- 
tarum  glossarum.  De  ista  manducatione  aut  sumptione  sacramental!  corporis  et 
sanguims  Christi,  non  intelligitur  authoritas  praedicta,  ut  decent  sane  Doctores 
communiter.  Lubb.  16.  1141,  1144. 

a  Longum  esset  singulos  Doctores  inducere,  qui  totum  praesens  capitulum  de 
spiritual!  manducatione  principaliter  et  ex  directo  exposuerunt.  Labb.  17.  934. 
Canisius,  4.  538. 

Miraberis,  sat  scio,  summam  omnium  concordiam  ad  hunc  sensum.  Dicere 
possis  praeceptum  illud  Joannis  VT.  de  spiritual!  manducatione  et  bibitione  per  fidem 
vivam  in  Christum,  jam  inde  esque  ab  ejus  promulgatione  fecisse  interpretatum 
ab  ecclesia  universa  Labb.  20.  615,  616. 

Dominus  loquitur  de  fide.  Nondum  instituerat  sacramentum.  Cajetan,  7 
2.  Tract.  2.  c.  1. 

Le  sacrament  n'etoit  pas  encore  institue.     Pius  II.     Ep.  130. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  NOT  SUPPORTED  BY  JOHN,  CH.  VI.   389 

sition,  therefore,  which  would  involve  this  exclusion,  must,  even 
according  to  the  Romish  system,  be  rejected.  Participation  in 
the  communion  is  not,  according  to  the  Trentine  council  in  the 
twenty-first  session,  necessary  for  salvation :  nor  is  it  to  be 
administered  to  any  till  the  developement  of  reason. 

This  agrees  with  the  statements  of  Augustine,  Bonaventure, 
Aquinas,  Ales,  and  Cajetan,  as  well  as  those  of  the  general 
councils  of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent.  If  the  communion 
were  necessary  for  salvation,  all  who  do  not  partake  of  that 
institution,  say  Augustine,  Bonaventure,  and  Aquinas,  *  would 
be  damned.  Such  could  have  no  life  :  and,  therefore,  the  words 
signify  spiritual  eating  by  faith  and  love.'  Ales  speaks  in  the 
same  style.  The  literal  sense  of  this  passage,  says  Cajetan, 
'  would  destroy  the  sufficiency  of  baptism,  and  such  an  inter- 
pretation, therefore,  is  inconsistent  with  the  Christian  faith.'1 

The  comments  of  the  Constantian,  Basilian,  and  Trentine 
fathers,  expressed  by  Mauricius,  Ragusa,  and  Villetan,  are  to 
the  same  purpose.  The  passage,  taken  in  the  literal  accepta- 
tion, would,  according  to  these  infallible  commentators,  '  teach 
the  necessity  of  the  communion  and  the  insufficiency  of  baptism. 
On  this  supposition,  children,  though  baptized,  would  perish, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  truth.  Our  Lord,  therefore,  in  John's 

fospel,  points  to  spiritual  participation  in  his  flesh  and  blood  by 
lith,  of  which  all  who  believe  partake  in  baptism,  and  without 
which  neither  child  nor  adult  can  obtain  salvation.'2 

The  literal  sense  of  this  passage,  limited  salvation  to  the  par- 
ticipations of  oral  rnanducation,  extends  the  blessing  to  all  such 
persons.  This  comment,  as  it  would  overthrow  the  competency 
of  baptism  without  the  communion,  so  it  would  establish  the 
competency  of  the  communion  without  baptism,  as  well  as 
without  faith  and  holiness.  JSe  who  observes  this  duty,  '  hath 

1  Bonaventura  arguit  per  Augustinum,  sufficit  ergo  ad  manducandum,  credere. 
Labb.  17.  937. 

Si  necesse  est  accedere,  parvuli  omnes  damnarentur.  Hoc  sacramentum  non  est 
de  necessitate  salutis.  De  hac  etiam  opinione  fuisse  videtur  Sanctus  Thomas.  Labb. 
17.  938. 

Patet  per  B.  Thomam  super  Joannem,  ubi  dicit,  referendo  literam  ad  manduca- 
tionem  spiritualem.  Qui  autem  sic  non  manducat,  non  habet  vitam.  Labb.  16.  1144. 

Ales  arguit,  tune  nullus  salvaretur,  si  moreretur  ante  ejus  susceptionem.  Praedic- 
tus  Doctor  dicit  quod  intelligitur  de  manducatione  spirittiali  et  per  fidem,  sine  qua 
nullus  adultus  salvabitur,  nee  etiam  parvulus.  Labb.  17.  937. 

Quia  igitur  idem  est  asserere  verba  ilia  Christi,  Jo.  6.  intelligi  de  cibi  et  potu 
eacramentali  eucharistiee  et  negare  baptismi  sufficientiam  ad  salutem,  clare  patet 
verba  ilia  nee  iutelligi  posse  de  cibo  et  potu  eucharistiae.  Cajetan.  T.  3.  T.  12.  c. 
1.  p.  293. 

2  Baptismus  est  sacramentum  necessitatis.     Parvuli  non  possunt  sine  eo  consequi 
aalutem.     Labb.    16.    1141.     Eucharistia  non  ponitur  sacramentum  necessitatis. 
Labb.  16.  942. 

Parvuli  sic  non  manducant,  et  habent  tamen  vitam  in  se.     Labb.  16.  1142. 
Singuli  Christi  fideles,  dum  in  baptismate  credentes  in  Christum  ejus  manduca- 
mus  carnem  et  sanguinem  bibimus.     Labb.  20.  610- 


390  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPER? 

everlasting  life.'  Such,  however,  is  contrary  even  to  Romish 
theology.  The  unworthy,  all  admit,  have  often  intruded  on 
this  mystery,  and  partaken  to  their  own  condemnation.  The 
metaphorical  meaning,  therefore,  is  necessary  to  reconcile  this 
part  of  Revelation  with  the  avowed  principles  of  popery. 

The  figurative  interpretation,  accordingly,  has  been  adopted 
by  most  Romish  commentators.  This  is  the  exposition  of 
Augustine,  Cajetan,  and  Innocent,  as  well  as  of  the  general 
councils  of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent,  transmkted  in  the 
diction  of  Mauricius,  Ragusa,  and  Villetari.  The  Redeemer, 
according  to  Augustine,  *  refers  not  to  the  communion :  for 
many  receive  from  the  altar  and  die,  and,  in  receiving,  die.' 
Our  Lord,  says  Cajetan,  '  speaks  not  here  of  the  sacrament : 
for  he,  it  is  said,  who  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood, 
dwelleth  in  me  arid  I  in  him.  But  many,  it  is  plain,  receive 
the  communion,  and  do  not  dwell  in  him  by  faith.  This  is 
often  the  case  with  the  unworthy.'  Pope  Innocent's  reasoning 
is  to  the  same  purpose.  The  good  as  well  as  the  bad,  says 
the  pontiff,  '  partake  in  a  sacramental  manner,  the  good  to  sal- 
vation, and  the  bad  to  condemnation.  Our  Lord  therefore,  in 
John's  gospel,  refers  not  to  oral  participation,  but  to  reception 
by  faith :  for,  in  this  manner,  the  good  only  eat  his  body.'1 

This  interpretation  was  approved  by  the  assembled  fathers  at 
Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent.  The  reception  mentioned  in  the 
gospel,  ensures  everlasting  life  ;  and  this,  say  the  Constantians, 
'  is  not  true  of  sacramental  manducation,  which  many  take,  not 
in  life,  but  to  their  own  condemnation.  You  shall  not  have 
life,  unless  you  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his 
blood  with  the  teeth  of  faith.  Such  reception  is  necessary  as 
baptism.  The  Basilians,  by  their  orator  Ragusa,  delivered  a 
similar  comment.  Sacramental  manducation,  according  to  this 
interpretation,  '  does  not  always  give  life,  nay,  often  death. 
But  spiritual  manducation  always  gives  life.  Jesus,  therefore, 
it  is  plain,  speaks  of  spiritual  reception,  because  he  annexes  life 
to  it,  which  does  not  always  follow,  but  sometimes  rather  death, 
from  sacramental  eating.  Many,  eating  sacramentally,  are 
damned  :  and  many,  not  eating  sacramentally,  such  as  children 
and  martyrs,  are  saved.'  Similar  is  the  gloss  admitted  at  Trent. 
John  here,  said  Villetan  to  the  approved  synod,  '  understands 

1  Augustinus,  Horn.  23,  quam  multi  de  altari  accipiunt  et  moriuntur,  et  accipi- 
endo  moriuntur.  Labb.  17.  929. 

Dominus,  Joann.  6.  non  loquitur  de  eucharistia.  Oonstat  autem  multos  snmere 
eucharistiae  sacramentum,  et  non  manere  in  Christo  per  fidem.  Cajetan,  Tom.  II. 
P.  142. 

Ad  idem  est  Innocentius  in  Libro  de  Officio,  ubi  ita  dicit,  comeditur  spiritualiter, 
id  est,  in  fide.  Hoc  modo  comedunt  corpus  Christi  soli  boni.  Innocen.  De  Off.  IV 
10.  Labb.  17.  933. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  NOT  SUPPORTED  BY  JOHN,  CH.  VI.   391 

eating  and  drinking  by  faith.     He  teaches  that  all  who  believe 
shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.'1 

These  observations,  in  a  negative  manner,  shew  what  the 
scriptural  phraseology  in  this  place  does  not  mean.  The  fol- 
lowing remarks  will  teach  every  unprejudiced  mind  what  the 
expression  does  signify.  Eating  and  drinking  here,  in  meta- 
phorical style,  are,  in  literal  language,  synonymous  with  be- 
lieving. The  manducation  mentioned  by  the  Son  of  God 
denotes  faith.  He  uses  believing  and  eating  as  convertible 
terms,  and  to  each  he  annexes  the  blessing  of  "  everlasting 
life."  The  same  effects  proceed  from  the  same  causes :  and 
everlasting  life  is,  according  to  this  phraseology,  the  conse- 
quence of  believing  or  of  eating  his  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood, 
which,  therefore,  must  signify  the  same.  Jesus  clearly  uses 
them  as  equivalent  expressions.  Faith,  indeed,  in  numberless 
recitations  that  might  be  transcribed  from  revelation,  is  the  grace 
which  is  always  attended  with  salvation. 

This  interpretation  is  not  solely  the  offspring  of  protestan- 
tism, but  of  popery.  It  is  not  merely  the  child  of  Luther  or 
Calvin,  Cranmer  or  Knox,  but  of  fathers,  doctors,  theologians, 
schoolmen,  saints,  cardinals,  popes,  general  councils,  and  the 
universal  church.  This  was  the  comment  of  the  fathers  Origen, 
Theophylact,  and  Bede.  Ragusa,  in  the  Council  of  Basil, 
quoted  Origen  as  authority  for  this  explanation.  According  to 
Theophylact,  *  Christians  understand  the  expression  spiritually, 
and  are  not  devourers  of  flesh.'  Bede,  following  Augustine, 
interprets  the  words  to  signify  '  spiritual  eating  and  drinking, 
eating  not  with  the  teeth,  but  in  the  heart.'2  Ignatius,  Cyril, 
Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Augustine,  Remigius,  and  Bernard,  who 
will  afterwards  occur  as  saints,  are  also  among  the  fathers  who 
embraced  this  explanation, 

1  Non  est  verum  de  raanducatione  sacramentali,  quam  multi  non  ad  vitam,  sed  ad 
judicium  sibi  sumunt.  Labb.  16.  1143. 

Nisi  dentibus  fidei  manducaveritis  camera  Filii  Hominis,  et  biberitis  ejus  saugui- 
nem,  non  habebitis  vitam  in  vobis.  Talis  manducatio  corporis  et  sanguinis  Christ! 
est  ita  necessaria  sicut  baptismus.  Labb.  16,  1221,  1222. 

Sacramentalis  manducatio  non  semper  dat  vitam,  imnio  saepe  mortem.  Spiritualis 
manducatio  semper  dat  vitam.  Quod  de  spirituali  manducatione  Christus  hie  loqui- 
tur patet,  quia  ubicumque  hie  de  manducatione  loquitur,  semper  adjungit  vitam, 
quag  utique  ad  sacramentalem  semper  non  sequitur,  immo  potius  mors.  Multi  sa- 
cramentaliter  non  comedentes,  ut  pueri  et  martyres,  salvati  sunt  et  salvantur.  Labb. 
17.  930.  Canisius,  4.  536. 

Ex  qua  mirifica  conspiratione  contecedentium  capitum  quis  non  facile  colligat. 
intellectam  a  Divo  Joanne  spiritualem  de  fide  in  Christum  manducationem  carnis,  et 
bibitiouem  sanguinis  ejus  1  Inculcans  quod  omnis  qui  credit  in  ipsum  non  pereat, 
eed  habeat  vitam  ffiternam.  Labb.  20.  614. 

2  Hoc  patet  per  authoritatem  Origenis.     Labb.  16.  1144. 

Ot  rtvsiyittT'Mettj  voovvtis  qfisis  ovfs  tfapxo^oyoc  tfytcv.  Theophylact,  1,  655. 
in  Joaun.  VI. 

Spiritualiter  manducetur,  spiritualiter  bibatur.  Beda,  6.  363.  Qui  manducat 
in  corde,  non  qui  premit  dente.  Beda,  in  1  Corin.  X. 


392  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

Origen,  Theophylact,  and  Bede,  have  on  this  topic,  been 
followed  by  a  long  train  of  doctors  or  theologians,  such  as 
Mauricius,  Ragusa,  Villetan,  Guerrero,  William,  Gerson,  Jan- 
senius,  Biel,  Walden,  Tilmann,  Stephen,  Lindan,  and  many 
other  theologians,  as  well  as  by  the  schoolmen  Lombard,  Albert, 
Aquinas,  Ales,  and  Bonaventure.  The  same  comment  was 
embraced  by  the  Saints  Ignatius,  Cyril,  Chrysostom,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  Remigius,  Bernard,  Bonaventure,  and  Aquinas.1 

Augustine,  in  particular,  was,  as  has  been  shewn  by  Ragusa 
in  the  Council  of  Basil,  the  distinguished  patron  of  this  opinion. 
Our  Lord,  says  this  saint,  '  seems  to  command  an  atrocity.  It 
is,  therefore,  a  figure  which  is  to  be  understood  in  a  spiritual 
sense.  He  is  spritually  eaten  and  drunk.  Eat,  not  with  your 
teeth,  but  with  your  heart.  Believe,  and  you  have  eaten  :  for 
to  believe  and  to  eat  are  the  same.'  This  in  numberless  places, 
is,  adds  Ragusa,  l  the  explanation  of  Augustine,  who,  in 
language  clearer  than  the  sun  or  noon-day,  explains  the  passage 
in  John's  Gospel  to  denote  spiritual  reception  by  faith.'2 

This  acceptation  of  the  passage  was  also  adopted  by  the  Car- 
dinals Bonaventure,  Alliaco,  Cusan,  and  Cajetan.  Bonaven- 
ture has  already  been  quoted  as  a  saint,  and  with  him  agrees 
Alliaco.  The  language,  says  Cusan,  « is  to  be  understood,  not 
of  visible  or  sacramental,  but  of  spiritual  manducation  by  faith.' 
Cajetan,  on  this  part  of  holy  writ,  is,  if  possible,  clearer  and 
stronger  than  Cusan.  The  Lord,  says  he,  *  speaks  of  faith. 

»Labb.  16.  942,  1141,  1142,  et  17.  926,  928.  et  20.  615,  616.  Canisius,  4.  533. 
Paolo,  2.  227.  Albertin.  1.  30. 

De  ista  manducatione  spiritual!  intelligitur  illud  Augustini,  quod  allegat  Magister 
sententiarum.  Labb.  16.  1142. 

Patet  per  Albertum  super  Joannem,  ubi  dicit  referendo  literam  ad  manduca- 
tionem  spiritualem.  Labb.  16.  1144. 

Ad  hoc  sunt  in  terminis  propriis  Alexander  de  Ales  et  Bonaventura.  Labb.  17. 
937. 

Ev  rtKrtei,  '  s GUV  crapfj  fov  Kvptot;.      Ignatius  ad  Trail.     Cotel.  2.  23. 

Exsivot,  p.vj  axexootES  rtj/su^afMewj  lav  teyopevuv  axavSaheaOfvdes,  vo(ju%ovt£$  of* 
0apxo$ayiav  awtovs  TtpofpfrfEfa*.  Cyril,  293. 

SfpEifcov  Tfrjv  rtca-tw,  irv  ft?  sawtov*     Chrysostom,  8.  277.     Horn.  47. 

Hieronymus  diserte  dixit,  quod  est  autem  maudticationem  carnis  et  bibitionem 
sanguinis  Christi  Joannis  VI.  de  fide  intelligi  debere.  Labb.  20.  615. 

Hcec  estprofecto  vera  intentio  Augustini  et  Remigii.     Labb.  17.  943. 

Bernardus  dicit,  quod  est  autem  manducare  ejus  carnem  et  bibere  ejus  sangui- 
uem,  nisi  communicare  passionibus  ejus.  Labb.  17.  951. 

Illud  patet  expresse  per  B.  Thomam  et  per  Bonaventuram.     Labb.  16.  1144. 

2  Flagitium  videtur  jubere.  Figura  est  ergo.  Augustin,  3.  52.  De  Doct.  III. 
16.  Augustinus  et  glossa  exponunt  textum  istum  Domini  de  spiritual!  manduca- 
tione. Labb.  16.  1245. 

Idem  est  manducare  et  bibere  quod  credere.  Canisius,  4.  535.  Qui  manducat 
eorde,  non  qui  premit  dente.  Labb.  17.  932. 

Credo  et  manducasti.     Canisius,  4.  928.     Innumerabilia  sunt  loca  Augustini  in 

?uibus  dictam  auctoritatem  Joannis  6.  de  spiritual!  manducatione  exponit.     Labb. 
7.232. 

Augustinus  sole  clarius  et  luce  meridiana  in  multis  locis  declaravit,  evangelium 
loanuis  debere  intelligi  de  spiritual!  manducatione.  Labb.  17.  944. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  NOT  SUPPORTED  BY  JOHN,  CH.  VI.   393 

The  sacrament  was  not  then  appointed.  The  words  are  pla^n 
and  cannot,  according  to  the  letter,  be  understood  of  Eucha- 
ristical  meat  arid  drink.'1 

The  same  is  the  explanation  of  Pope  Innocent  III.  and  Pius 
II.  The  Son  of  God,  says  Innocent  on  the  Mass,  '  speaks  of 
spiritual  participation  in  faith.  He  is  eaten,  when  we  are  in- 
corporated with  him  by  faith.  Pius  the  Second  concurs  with 
Innocent,  and,  if  possible,  in  still  more  explicit  terms.  Jesus, 
says  his  infallibility,  '  treats  there,  riot  of  sacramental,  but  of 
spiritual  drinking.  Faith  is  the  only  means  of  such  participa- 
tion :  for  the  communion  was  not  then  instituted.'2 

The  General  Councils  of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent,  sanc- 
tioned this  same  comment.  This  is  the  explanation  of  Mauri- 
cius,  in  his  Treatise  written  by  the  command  of  the  Constan- 
tian  council,  and  reported  at  Constance  in  the  Council.  The 
words,  according  to  this  work,  authorized  by  the  unerring 
assembly, '  cannot  signify  sacramental  participation,  but  spiritual 
reception  by  faith.3 

The  same  interpretation  was  authorized  by  the  General 
Council  of  Basil.  This  assembly  appointed  Ragusa  as  the 
champion  of  Catholicism  against  Rokzana,  the  patron  of  the 
Bohemian  heresy.  The  hero  of  the  faith  proceeded  in  a  long 
and  learned  speech  to  examine  this  part  of  John's  Gospel,  and 
he  shewed,  beyond  all  question,  that  i  Our  Lord  never  here,  in 
anyway,  mentions  sacramental  manducalion,but  spiritual  eating 
and  drinking  by  faith.'  He  proved  to  a  demonstration,  that 
Jesus  meant,  *  not  the  communion,  but  believing.  To  eat  and 
drink  is  to  believe,  and  to  believe  is  to  eat  and  drink.'4  The 
sacred  synod  received  his  advocacy,  not  only  without  opposition 

I  Bonaventura  arguit  per  Augustinum,  sufficit  ergo  ad  manducandum,  credere. 
Labb.  17.  237.  x 

Non  intelligendum  de  visibili  seu  sacramental!  manducatione,  sed  de  spiritual!. 
Ep.  7.  p.  857. 

Dominus  loquitur  de  fide.  Nondum  instituerat  sacramentum  eucharistiae.  Ca- 
jetan,  T.  2.  T.  2.  c.  1.  Clare  patet  verba  ilia  nee  intelligi  posse  de  cibo  et  potu 
eucharistiae.  Non  loquitur  ibi  Dominus  ad  literam  de  sacramental!  cibo  et  potu. 
Cajetan,  Tom.  3.  T.  2.  c.  1.  De  fide  in  ipsum,  non  de  sacramental!  manducatione, 
sermo  sit.  Cajet.  in  Aquin.  3.  394. 

'2  Ad  idem  est  Innocentius  in  Libro  de  officio,  ubi  ita  dicit,  comeditur  spiritua- 
'iter,  id  est,  in  fide.  De  spiritual!  comestione,  Dominus  ait,  nisi  manducaveritis. 
3omedit  ipsum,  quaud  incorporatur  Christo  per  fidem.  Labb.  17.  933. 

II  ne  s'agit  pas  la  de  boire   sacramentalement,  mais   de   boire   spirituellement. 
Ceux  croyoient  en  lui,  ceux  la  mangoient  sa  chair  et  buvoient  son  sang.     On   ne 
pouvoient  manger  etc.     Aen.  Syl.  Ep.  130.     Lenfan.  2.  211,  242. 

3  Christi  verba  non  sunt  intelligenda  de  manducatione   sacramental!.     Oportet 
ista  intelligi   de   manducatione   spiritual!.     De   ista   manducatione   spiritual!   seu 
Bumptione  intelligitur  praudictum  Christ!  verbum.     Labb.  16.  1142-1144. 

4  Christus  in  nulla  parte  prassentis  capitis,  nee  per  se   nee   per   accidens,   faciat 
quoquomodo  mentionem  de  sacramental!  manducatione.     Manducaverunt  camera 

quando   crediderunt Biberunt  ejus  sanguinem,  quando  modo  simij 

ae  crediderunt.    Lubb.  17.  931,  932.    Canisius,  4.  536.    Manducare  et  bibere  idem 
sit  quod  credere.     Labb.  17.  926. 


394  THE    VARIATIONS    OF   POPERY : 

but  with  approbation.  The  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  according 
to  the  popish  system,  marked  with  the  seal  of  infallibility . 

The  council  of  Trent  followed  those  of  Constance  and  Basil. 
Villetan  was  the  champion  of  popery  at  this  time,  as  Mauricius 
and  Ragusa  on  the  two  former  occasions.  According  to  his 
advocacy  in  a  general  congregation,  '  the  fruits  of  eating  our 
Lord's  flesh  and  drinking  his  blood  are  everlasting  life  and 
dwelling  in  him  ;  and  both  referred  to  a  living  faith.  All  who 
believe  do  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.'  '  Thee,  Lord,' 
said  the  orator,  '  thee,  we  eat  and  drink  when  we  believe  in 
thee.'  This  exposition  Villetan  affirmed,  without  any  contra- 
diction before  the  unerring  assembly,  '  has  always,  ever  since 
its  promulgation,  been  the  interpretation  of  the  Universal 
Church.'  This,  therefore  is  not  the  gloss  of  heretical  protes- 
tantism, but  of  Catholicism  and  the  church.1  Yet  every  modern 
scribbler  in  favour  of  transubstantiation,  such  as  Milner, 
Challenor,  Maguire,  and  Kinsella,  cite  the  passage  without 
hesitation  as  an  irrefragable  proof  of  their  system. 

The  advocates  of  transubstantiation  deduce  a  second  scrip- 
tural argument  from  the  words  of  Institution.  Jesus,  when  he 
appointed  the  sacrament,  said,  "  This  is  my  body  ;  this  is  my 
blood."  The  bread  and  wine,  therefore,  say  these  theologians 
who  interpret  the  expression  to  suit  their  system,  were  trans- 
formed into  his  body  and  blood.  The  argument  is  pitiful 
beyond  expression ;  and  properly  deserves  nothing  but  con- 
tempt. Its  whole  force  depends  on  the  meaning  of  the  term, 
which  its  patrons  have  taken  in  a  sense  of  their  own,  for  the 
purpose  of  imposing  a  doctrine  of  their  own  on  the  Word  of 
God.  But  the  term,  in  its  usual  acceptation,  signifies  to  repre- 
sent. The  words  of  institution,  according  to  their  common 
scriptural  signification,  might  be  translated,  "  This  represents 
my  body  ;  this  represents  my  blood."  All  then  would  be 
rational  and  consonant  with  the  original ;  while  the  monstei 
transubstantiation,  in  Cardinal  Perron's  language,  would,  even 
in  appearance,  be  excluded. 

Mathematicians  sometimes  demonstrate  the  truth  of  a  propo- 
sition, by  shewing  the  absurdity  of  a  contrary  supposition. 
Many  demonstrations  of  this  kind  are  to  be  found  in  Euclid  and 
other  geometricians.  The  absurdity  of  the  meaning  which  the 
partizans  of  transubstantiation  attach  to  the  word,  used  by  oui 
Lord  at  the  celebration  of  the  sacrament,  may  be  exposed  in  the 
same  way.  Admit  the  accuracy  of  the  papal  exposition,  and 

1  Duos  imprimis  dicatur  inde  percipere  fructus,  ut  scilicet  habeat  vitam  eeteruam 
et  ut  maneat  in  Christo,  utrumque  fidei  vivae  referri.  Omnia  qui  credit  in  ipsum 
non  pereat,  sed  habeat  vitam  ceternam.  Labb.  20.  616. 

De  spiritual!  manducatione  et  bibitione  per  tidem  vivam,  jam  inde  usque  ab  ejua 
prMnulgatione  fuisse  interpretatum  ab  ecclesia  uuiversa.  Labb.  20.  616 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  NOT  PROVED  BY  MATT.  XXVI.  26,  28.     395 

any  expositor,  by  a  simple  process,  could  transform  the  God  of 
heaven  into  a  sun,  a  shield,  a  rock,  a  fortress,  a  buckler,  or  any 
thing.  The  Jewish  monarch,  indeed,  under  the  afflatus  of  in- 
spiration, has  designated  the  Almighty  by  all  these  appellations. 
The  Messiah,  by  a  similar  interpretation,  might  be  transubstan- 
tiated into  a  door,  a  vine,  a  rock,  a  way,  a  foundation,  a  lamb, 
a  lion,  a  rose,  a  lily,  a  star,  a  sun,  or  any  object,  according  to 
whim  or  fancy.1  Jesus,  in  the  scriptural  vocabulary,  is  called 
by  all  these  names  and  many  more,  whose  enumeration  would 
be  tedious  and  is  unnecessary.  Such  consequences,  in  loudest 
acclamation,  proclaim  the  condemnation  of  the  system. 

The  simplicity  of  the  process,  by  which  all  these  metamor- 
phoses may  be  effected,  is  admirable.  Allow  any  popish  doctor 
a  convenient  interpretation  of  a  monosyllable  composed  of  two 
letters,  and  he  will,  with  the  utmost  dispatch,  transubstantiate 
a  wafer  into  the  Almighty  ;  and,  with  equal  ease,  could,  by  the 
same  simple  means,  transform  the  Messiah  into  nearly  any  ob- 
ject of  the  mineral,  vegetable,  or  animal  kingdom.  He  performs 
his  feats  with  talismanic  facility.  All  difficulty  vanishes  before 
his  magic  touch.  He  works  with  as  much  rapidity  as  Mer- 
cury, in  Lucian,  piled  Pelion  on  Ossa  and  Parnassus  on  Pelion. 
His  definition  enables  the  sacerdotal  conjurer  to  surpass  all  the 
wonders  of  jugglery,  legerdemain,  enchantments,  spells,  and 
necromancy.  He  can  encase  Emmanuel,  body,  blood,  bones, 
nerves,  muscles,  and  sinews  together  with  his  soul  and  divinity, 
in  a  neat  little  piece  of  pastry,  which  he  can  transfer  with 
becoming  grace,  into  the  mouth,  down  the  throat,  and  into 
the  stomach  :  and  send  home  the  devout  communicant  with  his 
God  in  his  belly.  This  conveyance  it  seems,  was  sometimes, 
as  might  be  expected,  attended  with  astonishing  effects.  '  Being 
permitted,'  says  Aquinas,  '  to  fasten  their  teeth  in  the  Lord's 
flesh,  such  rise  from  his  table,  like  lions,  breathing  fire  frightful 
to  the  devil.'2 

The  same  scriptural  evidence  might  be  produced  for  the 
tran substantiation  of  the  water,  obtained  by  Adino,  Eleazar, 
and  Shamrnah  from  the  fountain  of  Bethelehem,  as  for  the  wine 
in  the  sacramental  cup.  David  longed  to  drink  from  this  spring, 
and  three  Jewish  heroes  cut  their  dangerous  way  through  the 
squadrons  of  the  enemy,  and  brought  the  king  the  object  of  his 
wish.  This,  however,  when  ofFered,  he  would  not  drink.  He 
called  it  '  the  blood  of  the  men  that  went  in  jeopardy  of  their 
lives,'  and  poured  it  out  as  an  oblation  to  God.3  The  argument, 

1  Psalm  xviii.  2.  and  Ixxxiv.  11.  John  x.  7.  John  xv.  1.  Conn.  x.  4.  John  i. 
29.  Rev.  v.  5.  Malach.  iv.  2. 

3  Ut  leones  flammam  spirantes,  sic  ab  ilia  mensa  dicedimus  terribiles  effecti  dia 
bob  Aquinas,  ILL  79.  vi.  P'  383.  3  2  Sam.  xxiii.  17.  Chron.  xi.  19. 


396  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

in  the  one  instance,  is  as  strong  for  the  change  of  the  water  into 
blood,  as  in  the  other  for  the  transmutation  of  the  wine. 

The  popish  meaning  of  the  term  would  transubstantiate  the 
whole  church  into  the  Lord's  body.1  Paul,  addressing  the  Corin- 
thians, Ephesians,  and  Colossians,  says,  "  the  church  is  the 
Lord's  body."  Take  the  term  in  the  Romish  acceptation,  and 
all  Christians  are  transformed  into  the  real  and  substantial 
body  of  Jesus,  comprehending  of  course  his  blood.  The  argu 
ment,  deduced  from  the  Scriptural  expression,  is  as  strong  for 
the  transubstantiation  of  the  church  as  for  that  of  the  Sacrament. 
Grant  the  one,  and,  in  consequence,  the  other  follows. 

The  friends  of  transubstantiation,  in  the  words  of  institution, 
declare  for  the  literal  acceptation  and  deprecate  all  figurative 
interpretation.  Challenor  would  take  the  expression  in  '  its 
obvious  and  natural  meaning.'  This  statement  supposes  two 
things.  One  is,  that  Jesus  used  no  metaphorical  language  at 
the  appointment  of  the  sacrament ;  and  the  other,  that  the  popish 
gloss  is  the  natural  or  usual  sense  of  the  term.  But  these  are 
both  misrepresentations.  The  Institutor  said,  "  this  cup  is  the 
New  Testament  in  my  blood."  Salmeron  acknowledges  what 
indeed  cannot  be  denied,  that  this  expression  contains  two 
metaphors.  The  cup,  by  a  metonymy,  is  put  for  its  wine,  and 
the  New  Testament  for  its  sign  or  symbol.  Admit  the  papal 
or  literal  sense,  and  the  cup,  not  the  wine,  would  be  transub- 
stantiated, not  into  the  blood  of  the  Mediator,  but  into  the  New 
Testament. 

Neither  is  the  Romish  interpretation  the  usual  meaning  of  the 
term.  Its  common  acceptation,  in  Scriptural  phraseology,  cor- 
responds, on  the  contrary,  with  the  protestant  exposition.  The 
opponents  of  transubstantiation  use  the  word  in  '  its  obvious  and 
natural  meaning,'  in  the  Sacred  Volume.  This  was  its  general 
signification  among  the  Jews,  as  might  be  shown  from  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  the  same  might  be  evinced  by  many  citations 
from  the  Christian  Revelation.2 

This  interpretation  may  be  corroborated  by  many  quotations 
from  the  Fathers.  The  ancients  patronized  this  exposition. 
All  these  characterized  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine  as 
signs,  figures,  symbols,  emblems,  or  images  of  the  Institutor's 
body  and  blood.  This,  in  effect,  was  considering  them  as 
signifying  or  representing  our  Lord.  Saying  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  the  signs  of  his  body  and  blood  was,  in  other  words, 
saying  that  these  sacramental  elements  signified  or  represented 
the  Divine  author  of  the  Institution. 

1  1  Conn.  xii.  27.     Eph.  i.  22,  23.     Eph.  iv.  12.     Colos.  i.  24. 

*Gen.  xl.  12,  18  et  xli.  26,  27.     Matt.  xiii.  19,  37,  38,  39,  40.     Corin.  x.  4, 


ELEMENTS  ACCOUNTED  SIGNS,  FIGURES,  AND  EMBLEMS.       397 

A  few  instances  out  of  many,  in  which  the  sacramental  ele- 
ments are  represented  as  signs,  symbols,  figures,  and  emblems, 
may  be  selected  from  Tertullian,  Ambrosius,  Augustine 
Ephrem,  Procopius,  and  Bede.1  Jesus,  according  to  Tertullian 
said  at  the  first  celebration  of  this  mystery,  "This  is  my  body, 
that  is,  the  figure  of  my  body."  Ambrosius,  Augustine, 
Ephrem,  and  Bede,  characterized  the  sacramental  elements  as 
figures ;  while  Augustine  and  Procopius  represent  the  bread 
as  "  the  sign  or  emblem  of  his  body." 

Transubstantiation,  therefore,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
inspired  canon.  This,  many  of  its  partizans,  such  as  Erasmus, 
Scotus,  Bellarmine,  Alliaco,  Cajetan,  Fisher,  Biel,  Tanner,  and 
Canus,  have  conceded.  These  indeed  believe  the  absurdity. 
Their  faith,  however,  or  rather  credulity,  was,  according  to 
their  own  confession,  founded,  not  on  the  evidence  of  Revela- 
tion, but  on  the  testimony  of  tradition  and  the  authority  of  the 
church.  Erasmus  *  found  no  certain  scriptural  declaration  of 
this  dogma.'  Scotus  admits  '  the  want  of  express  scriptural 
evidence  in  favour  of  tran substantiation,'  and  Bellarmine  grants 
'  the  probability  of  the  statement.'  '  The  opinion,'  says  Cardi- 
nal Alliaco,  wThich  maintains  that  the  bread  and  wine  preserve 
their  own  substance,  '  is  not  unscriptural ;  and  is  more  rational 
and  easy  of  belief  than  the  contrary.'  Cajetan's  admission, 
that  '  transubstantiation  is  not  expressly  taught  in  the  gospel,' 
was  so  pointed  that  Pius  the  Fifth  ordered  it  to  be  expunged 
from  the  Roman  edition  of  the  Cardinal's  works.  '  The  true 
presence  in  the  mass,'  says  Fisher,  '  cannot  be  proved  from  the 
words  of  institution.'  This  theory,  according  to  Biel,  Tanner, 
and  Canus,  *  is  not  revealed  in  the  sacred  canon.'2  Similar 
concessions  have  been  made  by  Occam,  Alphonsus,  Cantaren, 
Durand,  and  Vasquesius. 

Transubstantiation  is  a  variation  from  ecclesiastical  as  well  as 
Scriptural  antiquity.     The  church,  in  its  days  of  early  purity, 

1  Corpus  suura  ilium  fecit  dicendo  'hoc  est  corpus  meum,'  id  est  figura  corporis 
mei.     Tertul.  Contra  Marcian.  IV.  40.  p.  458.     Est  figura  corporis  et  sanguinis 
Domini.     Ambros.  IV.  5       Dominus  non  dubitavit  dicere  '  hoc  est  corpus  meum,' 
cum  daret  signum  corporis  sui.     Aug.  8.  154.     Contra  Adiman.  c.  12.     Fregit  in 
6guram  immaculati  corporis.     Ephrem,    De  Natur.    681.     HapaSuxe  fixora  tfov 
tfiwnj  tfiojuai'os  juetftyrcuf.    Procop.  in  Gen.  49.     Suae  carnis  sanguinisque  sacramen- 
tum  in  panis  et  vini  figura  substituens.     Beda,  5.  424.  in  Luc.  22. 

2  Nullum  reperio  locum  in  Scripturis  Divinis  unde  certo  constet  Apostolos  con- 
secrasse  panem  et  vinum  in  carnem  et  sanguinem  Domini.     Erasmus,   3.   1193. 
Scotus  dicit  non  extare  locum  ullum  scriptura?  tarn  expressum  ut  sine  declaratione 
ecclesiae  evidenter  cogat  transubstantionem  admittere,  et  id  non  est  omnino  impro- 
babile.    Bellarm.  III.  33.    Nee  repugnat  rationi  nee  authoritati  Bibliae.    Alliaco.  XI. 
6.  1.     Evangelium  non  explicavit  expresse.     Cajetan,  III.  75.  1.  in  Aquin.  3.  348. 
Nee  ullum  hie  verbum  positum  est  quo  probetur,  in  nostra  missa  veram  fieri  <  amis 
et   sanguinis    Christi   praesentiam.     Fisher,  c.    10.     Non  invenitur   expressum  in 
canone  Bibliae.     Biel.  Lect.   40.     Quae  in  Scripura  sola  non  continentur,  Tannei; 
Comp.  c.  6.     Non  sit  proditum  in  sacris.     Canus,  III.  3. 


398  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

disowned  the  ugly  monster.  The  Fathers  as  well  as  the  Apostles 
disclaimed  the  absurdity,  which  insults  reason,  outrages  Revela- 
tion, and  degrades  man.  This  appears  from  several  considera- 
tions. Ecclesiastical  antiquity  represents  the  bread  and  the  wine 
as  retaining  their  own  nature  or  substance  ;  and  as  conveying 
nourishment  to  the  human  body  ;  and  ascribes  a  transmutation, 
similar  to  that  effected  in  these  elements,  to  the  water  of  bap- 
tism ;  and  to  man  in  regeneration. 

The  monuments  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity  represent  the  sacra- 
mental elements  as  retaining  their  own  nature  or  substance, 
without  any  change  or  transubstantiation.  Such  is  the  state- 
ment of  Gelasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Facundus.1 
*  The  elements  in  the  sacrament,'  says  Pope  Gelasius,  who 
flourished  in  the  fifth  century,  *  are  divine,  yet  cease  not  to  be 
the  substance  or  nature  of  bread  :  and  are  certainly  the  image 
and  similitude  of  the  Lord's  body.'  Chrysostom,  the  saint  and 
the  patriarch,  declares  that  *  the  bread  after  consecration,  is 
worthy  of  being  called  the  Lord's  body  ;  though  the  nature  of 
the  bread  remains  in  it.'  Theodoret,  in  his  First  and  Second 
Dialogue,  is,  if  possible,  still  plainer.  *  The  Lord,'  says  this 
Bishop,  '  hath  honoured  the  visible  signs  with  the  appellation 
of  his  body  arid  blood  ;  not  having  changed  their  nature,  but 
having  added  grace  to  nature.  The  mystic  symbols,  after 
consecration,  do  not  change  their  proper  nature ;  but  remain  in 
their  former  substance,  form,  and  species.'  According  to 
Facundus  an  African  bishop,  '  the  sacrament  of  his  body  and 
blood,  in  the  consecrated  bread  and  cup,  is  denominated  his 
body  and  blood ;  not  that  die  bread  is  properly  his  body  and 
the  cup  his  blood  ;  but  because  they  contain  in  them  the  mys- 
tery of  his  body  and  blood.' 

The  authors  of  these  quotations  were  men,  who,  in  their  day, 
stood  high  in  erudition  and  Catholicism.  Their  theological 
learning  must  have  secured  them  from  mistaking  the  opinions 
of  the  age  on  the  subject  of  the  sacrament.  Their  works  were 
widely  circulated  through  Christendom,  and  their  arguments 
were  never  contradicted  or  even  suspected.  These  citations, 
therefore,  must  decide  the  question  in  the  judgment  of  every 
unprejudiced  mind. 

These  statements  from  Gelasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and 

1  Esse  non  desinit  substantia  vel  natura  panis  et  vini.     Gelasius.  adv.     Euty.  689. 

Dignus  habitus  est  Domini  Corporis  appellations,  etiamsi  natura  panis  in  ipso 
permansit.  Chrysostorfi,  ad  Caesarium,  3.  744. 

Ovfoj  fa  opwfisva  tft^jSoXa  ttj  tov  tfcojuat'o$  xac  atjitafoj  rtpoor^yopta  iftinyxev, 
9v  frjv  fyvaw  jw.ft'ajSoXwv  aX.Xa  fjjv  ^apw  tv)  $u<j£t.  rtpocrfffowewj.  Theod.  Dial.  1. 
Ovbs  yap  p,f^ a  fov  aytaffjttov  fa  ftvfff txa  otytjSoXa  t ^  oixtuu,  clt^fafat  <j> vtff coj ; 
fifVft,  yap  f  »;$  rtpof £pa$  ovcrtaj,  xat,  f  01;  u^/iat oj,  xai  for  £t6ovj.  Theod.  4.  18.  85. 

Non  quod  proprie  corpus  ejus  sit  panis  et  poculum  sanguis,  sed  quod  in  §e 
mysterium  corporis  ejus  et  sanguinis  contineant.  Facund.  ix.  5. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  NOT  TAUGHT  BY  THE  FATHERS.   399 

Facundus  have  sadly  puzzled  and  perplexed  the  partizans  of 
Iran  substantiation.  The  testimony  of  Gelasius  silenced  Cardinal 
Cantaren  in  a  disputation  at  Ratisbon.  Cardinal  Alan  admits 
Gelasius's  and  Theodoret's  rejection  of  a  substantial  change  in 
the  sacramental  elements  ;  but  maintains  that  these  two  alone 
in  their  age  embraced  this  heresy.  Du  Pin,  having  quoted 
Facundus,  refers  the  reader  to  others  for  a  resolution  of  the 
difficulty.  Harduin,  Alexander,  and  Arnold,  however,  have 
attempted  the  arduous  task.1  The  nature  or  substance, 
according  to  these  authors,  signifies,  in  this  case  the  species  or 
accidents,  which  remain  unchanged  in  the  sacramental  elements. 
But  Theodoret,  in  the  above  quotation,  distinguishing  the 
substance  from  the  accidents,  represents  the  sacramental 
elements,  as  retaining  their  former  substance  and  species.  The 
substance  is  here  discriminated  from  the  species  or  accidents  , 
and  all  these,  which  he  enumerates,  remain  in  the  mass  without 
any  transmutation. 

The  answer  of  these  authors  shews  their  skill  at  transforma- 
tions. The  substance  of  the  sacramental  bread,  in  their  hands 
becomes,  at  pleasure,  either  accidents  or  the  body  of  our  Lord. 
These  theologians  could  not  only,  as  priests,  transubstantiate  the 
substance  of  the  elements  into  flesh  and  blood,  but  also,  as 
authors,  when  it  served  their  purpose,  into  accidents  or  species. 
A  few  words  from  their  mouths  could  convert  the  substance  of 
wine  into  blood,  and  a  few  strokes  from  their  pens  could  meta- 
morphose the  same  into  accidents.  These  jugglers  should  have 
displayed  their  extraordinary  powers,  in  transforming  accidents 
into  substance  as  well  as  substance  into  accidents  ;  and  they 
would  then  have  exhibited  the  perfection  of  their  art. 

The  ancients  represent  the  bread  and  wine  as  conveying 
nourishment  to  the  human  body.  Such  are  the  statements  of 
Justin,  Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian.2  '  The  sacramental  bread  and 
wine,'  says  Justin,  '  nourish  our  flesh  and  blood  by  digestion.' 
According  to  Ireriaeus,  '  the  consecrated  elements  increase  our 
body.'  Tertullian  represents  '  our  flesh  as  feeding  on  his  body 
and  blood.'  Ludovicus  lived  entirely  on  the  host  for  forty  days  - 
and  Catharina  subsisted  on  the  same  from  Ash-  Wednesday  till 
Ascension.  The  consecrated  elements  therefore  are  food  for  the 
body  as  well  as  for  the  soul  ;  and  in  consequence  preserve  their 
own  substance.  None  surely  will  maintain  the  impiety,  if  not 

1  Chrysostom,  3.  740.     Alex.  19.  569. 

1  E|  <q$  aipa  xa,i  flapxsj  xata,  ^fr'ajSo^v  tpsfyovtOA  ifttww.     Justin,  Apol.  96.  A$ 


f  pa  avijft  tfWjua-rU.     Iren.  V.  2. 
Caro  corpore  et  sanguine  Christi  vescitur.     Tertullian,  de  Resur.  c.  8.  p.  330. 
Catharina  inventa  est  aliquando  a  die  cinerum  usque  ad  ascensionem  Domini  jeju. 
nium  perduxisse,  sola  Eucharistire  communione  contenta.     Brev.  Rom  763. 


400  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

blasphemy,  that  the  flesh  of  man  is,  by  digestion  and  nutrition, 
formed  of  the  flesh  of  Emmanuel. 

Innocent  the  third  resolved  this  difficulty  by  granting  that 
something  of  the  bread  and  wine  remain  in  the  sacrament,  to 
allay  hunger  and  thirst.1  His  infallibility,  for  once,  was  right, 
for  which  he  was  afterward  anathematized  by  the  holy  council 
of  Trent.  This  infallible  assembly,  in  its  thirteenth  session, 
heartily  cursed  all  who  should  say  that  the  bread  and  wine 
remain  with  the  Lord's  body  and  blood,  or  should  deny  the 
transformation  of  the  whole  bread  and  wine.  This  denunciation 
was  a  retrospective  dash  at  the  vicar-general  of  God.  Whether 
the  imprecation  sent  his  holiness  to  purgatory  or  to  a  worse 
place,  the  friends  of  transubstantiation  and  the  papacy  may 
determine. 

Aquinas,  Godeau,  Du  Pin,  and  Challenor  endeavour  to  evade 
the  difficulty  by  an  extraordinary  distinction  and  supposition.2 
These  distinguish  the  substance  from  the  species;  and  with 
the  former,  which  is  not  subject  to  corruption,  would  feed  the 
soul ;  and  with  the  latter,  which  some  might  perhaps,  think  light 
provision,  would  sustain  the  body.  The  accidents,  Aquinas  and 
Godeau  make  no  doubt,  may,  by  an  operation  of  the  Almighty, 
produce  the  same  effects  as  the  substance  and  nourish  the  human 
frame.  The  angelic  doctor  confers  on  the  host, '  the  efficacy  of 
substance  without  the  reality.'  Du  Pin  and  Challenor  entertain 
a  similar  idea.  The  learned  divines,  it  seems,  have  discovered 
a  method  of  fattening  men  on  accidents,  such  as  form,  quality, 
taste,  smell,  colour,  signs,  and  appearances.  Signs  without  sig- 
nification, shadow  without  substance,  shew  without  any  thing 
shewn,  colour  without  any  thing  coloured,  smell  without  any 
thing  smelled,  present,  it  appears,  an  exquisite  luxury,  and  form, 
according  to  these  theological  cooks,  an  excellent  sustenance 
for  the  human  constitution. 

Challenor,  however,  doubtful  of  this  theory,  and  suspicious  of 
this  unsubstantial  food,  has,  by  a  happy  invention,  provided  a 
kind  of  supernatural  meat,  if  his  immaterial  diet  should  happen 
to  be  condemned  for  inefficiency.  Some  miraculous  nourish- 
ment of  a  solid  kind,  he  thinks,  may  be  substituted  by  Omnipo- 
tence, when,  by  deglutition  and  digestion, '  the  sacramental  spe- 
cies are  changed,'  and  the  sacramental  substance  is  removed. 
Aquinas,  Godeau,  Du  Pin,  and  Challenor,  in  this  manner,  rather 

1  Innocent.  III.  avouoit  lui  meme,  qu'il  restoit  dans  1'eucharistie  une  certaine 
paueite  et  vineit6,  qui  appaisent  la  faim  et  la  soif.  Innocent,  in  Bruy.  3.  148 
Labb.  29.  84. 

3Non  sint  substantia,  habent  tamen  virtutem  substantise.  Aquin.  III.  Q.  77 
Art.  VI. 

Les  accidens  par  1'operarion  miraculeuse  de  la  toute-puissance  Divine  produisent 
lea  memes  effets,  que  la  substance.  Godeau,  5.  378.  DuPin,  2.  84.  Challenor,  48 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  NOT  TAUGHT  BY  THE  FATHERS.   40] 

than  renounce  a  nonsensical  system,  condescend  to  talk  balder- 
dash. The  credulity  and  blind  zeal  of  Aquinas,  Godeau,  and 
Challenor  indeed  prepared  these  superstitionists  for  the  recep- 
tion of  any  absurdity ;  and  the  greater  the  absurdity  the  more 
acceptable  to  their  taste,  and  the  better  calculated  for  the  meri- 
dian of  their  intellect.  But  more  sense  might  have  been  ex- 
pected from  Du  Pin,  who,  on  other  occasions,  shews  judgment 
and  discrimination. 

Many  of  the  fathers,  indeed,  have  been  quoted  in  favour  of 
transubstantiation.  Some  of  these  express  themselves  in  strong 
language.  A  person  unacquainted  with  the  hyperbolical  diction 
of  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  and  the  forms  of  speech  used  in  these 
days,  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  some  of  the  fathers  held  a 
doctrine  similar  to  modern  transubstantiation.  An  opinion  of 
this  kind,  however,  must  arise  from  indiscrimination  in  the 
reader,  and  from  the  exaggeration  of  the  author.  The  ancients, 
through  want  of  precision,  often  confounded  the  sign  with  the 
signification.  This  confusion  led  them  to  exaggeration,  and  to 
ascribe  to  the  sign  what  was  true  only  of  the  signification  ;  and 
this  communion  and  exaggeration  of  antiquity  have  been  augmen- 
ted by  the  misrepresentations  of  the  moderns,  in  their  garbled 
and  unfair  citations. 

Ignatius  and  Cyril  supply  a  specimen  of  such  confusion  and 
misstatement.  Ignatius,  who  so  nobly  faced  the  horrors  of 
martyrdom,  has  been  characterized  as  the  friend  of  transub- 
stantiation. The  martyr  desired  'the  bread  of  God,  which  is 
the  flesh  of  Jesus,  and  the  drink,  which  is  his  blood  :'  and  he 
mentioned  some  persons,  who,  in  his  day,  denied  the  sacrament 
to  be  the  flesh  of  the  Saviour. 

The  apparent  force  of  this  quotation  arises  from  its  want  of 
precision,  and  its  separations  from  a  parallel  part  of  the  author's 
work.  Ignatius  elsewhere  calls  '  the  gospel,  and  the  faith  that 
comes  by  the  gospel,  the  flesh  of  Jesus,  and  love,  his  blood."1 
A  comparison  of  these  two  citations  removes  every  difficulty. 

Cyril  affords  another  specimen.  According  to  this  saint, '  the 
Lord's  body  is  given  under  the  emblem  of  bread  and  his  blood 
under  the  emblem  of  wine.  Consider  them,  therefore,  not  as 
mere  bread  and  wine  ;  for  they  are  the  body  and  blood  of 
Emmanuel.' 

But  the  same  author  ascribes  a  similar  change  to  the  oil,  used 
at  that  time  in  baptism.  He  represents  *  the  oil  of  baptism 
after  consecration,  not  as  mere  oil,  but  as  the  grace  of  Jesus, 


,  c$  cfapxt  Irjtiov.     AvaxtfoaaOs  tavtovs  sv  ,  ^ 

tov  Kuptou,  e v  ayartw  6  ecrttv  atua  Iraov     Ignat.  ad  Trail,  et  ad  Phii 
Cotel.  2,  23,  31 

26 


402  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

as  the  bread  is  not  mere  bread,  but  the  body  of  our  Lord."1 
The  argument,  from  these  two  words,  is  as  conclusive  for  the 
tran substantiation  of  the  baptismal  oil  as  for  the  eucharistical 
bread. 

Cyril  also  represents  the  manducation  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
mentioned  by  John,  in  a  spiritual  sense  which  does  not  imply 
the  eating  of  human  flesh.  This  communion,  he  adds, '  consists 
ii  receiving  the  emblems  of  our  Lord's  body.' 

Antiquity  furnishes  no  stronger  proofs  of  transubstantiation, 
than  those  of  Ignatius  and  Cyril.  But  these  two  saints,  when 
allowed  to  interpret  themselves,  disclaim  the  absurdity.  The 
monster  had  not  appeared  in  their  day.  All  the  monuments  of 
Christian  antiquity,  in  like  manner,  when  rightly  understood, 
concur  in  the  rejection  of  this  modern  innovation. 

The  fathers  ascribe  the  same  change,  the  same  presence  of 
Jesus,  and  the  same  effect  on  man,  to  the  water  of  baptism,  as 
to  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Lord's  supper.  His  substantial 
presence  in  baptism,  and  the  consequent  participation  of  his 
blood  by  the  baptized  is  declared  by  Chrysostom,  Cyril,  Jerome, 
Augustine,  Fulgentius,  Prosper,  and  Bede.2 

Chrysostom  represents  the  baptized  as  '  clothed  in  purple  gar- 
ments dyed  in  the  Lord's  blood.'  Cyril,  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
describes  men  as  *  made  partakers  of  the  Saviour's  holy  flesh 
by  holy  baptism.'  Jerome  represents  Jesus  as  saying  to  all 
Christians,  '  ye  are  baptized  in  my  blood.'  The  eunuch,  says 
the  same  saint, '  was  baptized  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.'  Au- 
gustine, on  this  subject,  is  very  express.  He  depicts  '  the  faith- 
ful, as  participating  in  our  Lord's  flesh  and  blood  in  baptism.' 
This  is  cited  by  Fulgentius,  and,  therefore,  sanctioned  by  his 
authority.  The  redeemed,  says  Prosper, '  are  in  baptism,  tinged 
with  the  blood  of  Jesus.'  Augustine,  Prosper,  and  Bede  pour- 

1  O  apT"o5  f»7$  fu^aptu-r'taj,  jitf to,  -f^v  frtixtyaw  tov    ayiau    IIvfD/wat'oj,  ovx    tti 
api'oj,  aTiXa  (jw^ua  XptfJr'ov,  OUT'OJ  xat   7*0   aytov  fovto  pvpov  ovx   fft  fyfaov  ptw 
fjttx*rj<si,v>  aMw*  Xpttftfov  ^apt^a.    Cyril,  290,  292,  293,  300. 

2  Trjv  rtop<J>upav  rt£pt]3aXA,»7<j0£  *«  atytaf  t.  j3a<j>EK?cw/  8s ojtofixca-     Chrysos.   2.    226. 
ad  illumin.  Cetech.  I. 

Tryovs  ju.Et'o^a  T"^  dyia,$  awtov  ffapxoj  Sia  fov  d/ytou  Sqhovoft  jSartt'Ktytat'oj. 
Cyril,  4.  602  in  John  26. 

Baptizemini  in  saguine  meo.  Jerome,  3.  16.  in  Isa.  i.  Baptizatus  in  sanguine 
agni.  Jerom,  3.  385.  in  Isa.  liii. 

Unumquemque  fidelium  corporis  sanguinisque  dominici  participem  fieri,  quando 
in  Baptismate  membrum  Christi  eficitur.  Fulgentius,  de  Bap.  Unde  rubet  bap- 
tismus,  nisi  sanguine  Christi  consecratus.  Augustin,  Tract.  11.  Beda.  6.  356.  in 
1  Conn.  x.  August,  ad  Bonif.  c.  130.  Labb.  17.  944.  Aquinas,  3.  341.  Paulinua, 
892.  August.  10.  473. 

Baptismo  Christi  in  saguine  tinguntur.  Prosper,  c.  2.  P.  84.  Per  Mare  Rubrum 
Baptismurn  sacratum  Christi  sanguine  liberantur.  Prosper,  2.  233. 

Baptismo  Christi  sanguine  consecrato.  Augustine,  1.  1206.  Ascendas  de  fonte 
Cliristi  consecrata  in  sanguine.  Augustin.  6.  600. 


TRAN  SUBSTANTIATION    NOT    TAUGHT    BY    THE    FATHERS.    403 

tray  '  the  true  Israel  as  consecrated  in  baptism,  with  the  blood 
of  the  Lord.' 

The  ancients  also  represent  the  same  substantial  change  com- 
muuicated  to  men,  especially  in  baptism  and  regeneration,  as 
to  the  elements  of  the  communion.  Such  are  the  representations 
of  Cyril,  Gregory,  Etherius,  Beda,  and  Leo.1  According  to 
Cyril,  '  water  transforms  by  a  divine  and  ineffable  power.'  Re- 
generation, says  the  same  author,  '  changes  into  the  Son  of  God.' 
Gregory's  statement  is  to  the  same  purpose.  *  I  am  changed  ' 
says  this  author,  *  into  Christ  in  baptism.'  The  faithful,  say 
Etherius  and  Bede,  '  are  transformed  into  our  Lord's  members 
and  become  his  body.  Pope  Leo  the  First  is  still  more  express. 

*  Receiving  the  efficacy  of  celestial  food,'  says  his  infallibility, 

*  we  pass  into  his  flesh  who  was  made  our  flesh.    Man,  in  baptism, 
is  made  the  body  of  Christ.' 

Our  Lord,  therefore,  in  the  monuments  of  antiquity,  is  repre- 
sented as  present  in  baptism  as  well  as  in  the  communion.  The 
water,  in  the  one  institution,  is  represented  as  changed  into 
blood,  in  the  same  way  as  the  wine  in  the  other.  Man's  nature 
or  substance,  according  to  the  same  authority,  is  transformed  in 
baptism  and  regeneration.  The  person  who  is  renewed  and  bap- 
tized is,  in  these  statements,  changed  into  the  nature,  body, 
flesh,  or  substance  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  language  of  the 
fathers  is  as  strong  and  decided  for  transubstantiation  in  baptism 
as  in  the  communion  ;  for  the  corporeal  presence  in  the  former 
as  in  the  latter  ;  and  for  the  substantial  change  of  man  in  re- 
generation as  for  the  elements  in  the  sacrament.  The  abettors 
of  the  corporeal  presence,  notwithstanding,  with  awkward  incon- 
sistency, admit  transubstantiation  in  the  communion  and  reject 
it  in  baptism  and  regeneration. 

The  truth,  however,  is,  that  the  use  of  such  language  in  the 
literary  and  ecclesiastical  monuments  of  antiquity  was,  in  gene- 
ral, the  consequence  of  confounding  the  sign  with  the  significa- 
tion, and  ascribing  to  the  former  the  attributes  of  the  latter. 
The  appellation  and  properties  of  the  Lord's  flesh  and  blood  were, 
by  a  natural  tendency  of  the  human  mind,  transferred  to  the 
bread,  the  wine,  and  the  water  of  the  two  sacramental  institu- 
tions. The  change,  however,  in  the  elements  was  considered 


J  TScop  rtpo$  ®fiav  "twa  xac  app^T'oi/  jttf-r'aijT'ot^fct'at  8wap.(v»  Cyril.  4.  147.  in 
John  3.  MftaatoLxsiovcsa,  rtpoj  *tovv  tov.  Cyril,  5.  474.  Dial.  Ill 

Xpto-r'oi'fiErartCTtoi^at  tw  j3a7tfKJ/taTt.     Gregory,  orat.  40 

In  membris  ejus  transformamus.  Nos  in  illo  transformamur.  Etherius  adv. 
Elipan.  I.  Cauisins,  2.  322,  324.  Nos  ipsius  corpus  facti  snmus.  Fideles  fiant  cor- 
pus Christi.  Beda,  6.  365.  in  Cor.  x.  et  5.  509.  in  Joun.  VI. 

Accipieutes  virtutem  caslestis  cibi,  in  carnam  ipsius  qui  caro  nostra  factus  eft, 
transeamus.  In  Baptismate,  efficiatur  homo  corpus  Christi.  Leo.  I.  Ep.  23.  Labb. 
4,  815,  817 

26* 


404  THE    VARIATION^    OF    POPERY  I 

not  as  physical  but  moral.  The  bread  and  wine  altered  not 
their  substance  but  their  signification,  not  their  nature  but  their 
use.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  a  citation  from  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem. '  The  meat  of  the  pomp  of  Satan,'  says  the  Saint,  *  is, 
in  its  own  nature,  pure,  but,  by  the  invocation  of  demons, 
becomes  unholy,  as  the  elements  of  communion,  before  conse- 
cration, are  mere  bread  and  wine;  but  afterward  became  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord.'1  The  immolations  of  Gentilism, 
all  will  admit,  might,  according  to  Cyril,  contract  impurity,  but 
not  alter  their  nature  :  and  the  elements  in  the  sacrament  might, 
in  like  manner,  change  their  signification,  but  would  retain  their 
substance. 

Transubstantiation,  therefore,  is  without  any  foundation  in 
scriptural  or  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  Many  ages  elapsed  before 
the  monster,  which  was  the  child  of  darkness  and  superstition, 
appeared  in  the  world.  The  deformity,  however,  in  the  progress 
of  time,  the  change  of  system,  and  diversity  of  opinion  raised 
at  length  its  portentous  head  in  Christendom.  Several  causes 
concurred  to  facilitate  its  introduction  into  the  church.  The 
mind  of  man,  in  the  contemplation  of  emblematical  representa- 
tions, delights  to  confound  the  sign  with  the  signification.  The 
sacramental  symbols,  in  consequence,  were  often,  in  ancient 
works  on  Christian  theology,  not  sufficiently  discriminated  from 
the  objects  which  they  were  intended  to  notify.  The  ancients 
in  consequence  used  strong  language  and  bold  metaphors  in 
celebrating  this  institution,  and  in  discoursing  on  it  in  their 
literary  productions.  Accustomed,  on  all  topics,  to  flash  and 
rhetoric,  these  authors,  in  treating  on  this  mystery,  dealt  even 
beyond  their  usual  style,  in  superlatives  and  exaggeration. 
Habituated  to  such  phraseology,  men  were  prepared  for  the  re- 
ception of  a  novelty,  which  added  the  corporeal  to  the  spiritual 
presence  in  the  communion. 

Man  is  also  prone  to  form  a  material  deity,  whom  he  can  sec 
while  he  worships.  A  pure  spirit  seems  too  impalpable  and  re- 
fined for  a  being  like  man,  whose  soul  is  embodied  in  matter. 
He  seeks  something,  therefore,  to  attract  and  engage  the  exter- 
nal senses.  This  principle,  deep-rooted  in  human  nature,  has 
given  rise  to  all  the  idolatry  which  has  deformed  and  dishonoured 
Pagan,  Jewish,  and  Popish  worship.  The  idols  of  Gentilism 
exceeded  all  enumeration.  The  Jews,  though  blessed  with  a 
divine  revelation,  and  warned,  in  a  special  manner,  against 
idolatry,  often  forgot  Jehovah,  and  adored  Baal  and  other  gods 
of  heathenism.  The  votaries  of  Romanism,  in  like  manner,  and 
from  the  same  principle,  have  formed  a  material  divinity  and 
bow  to  the  host. 

'  Cyra,281. 


THE    INTRODUCTION    OF    TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  405 

The  Aristotelian  philosophy  which  had  become  the  reigning 
system,  facilitated  the  reception  of  transubstantiation.  The 
philosopher  of  Stagira  supposed  a  primary  matter  and  substantial 
forms,  which  compose  the  constitution  of  all  things.  This  pri- 
mary matter,  without  quantity,  quality,  figure,  or  any  propriety 
of  body,  was  the  subject  on  which  substantial  forms  might  be 
impressed,  and  to  which  they  might  adhere.  The  forms  were 
a  convenient  coverlet  for  the  matter.  This  nonsense  was  exceed- 
ingly useful  for  the  fabrication  of  transubstantiation.  The  inter- 
nal matter  or  substance,  in  the  papal  theology,  was,  in  the  host, 
changed  into  flesh  and  blood,  which  were  inclosed  in  the  form 
or  species  of  bread  and  wine.  A  theological  fiction,  in  this 
manner,  was  countenanced  and  illustrated  by  a  philosophical 
vision  :  and  the  philosophy,  in  inconsistency,  yields  only  to  the 
theology.  Transubstantiation  annexed  a  few  motley  additions 
to  the  airy  theory  of  the  Grecian  speculator ;  and,  in  conse- 
quence, became  the  consummation  of  absurdity.  The  climax 
of  nonsense  ended  in  the  faith  of  the  corporeal  presence  in  the 
sacrament. 

The  state  of  the  Latin  communion,  at  the  introduction  of 
transubstantiation,  was  perhaps  the  chief  reason  of  its  origin, 
progress,  and  final  establishment.  The  tenth  century  was  a 
period  of  darkness  and  superstition.  Philosophy  seemed  to  have 
taken  its  departure  from  Christendom,  and  to  have  left  mankind 
to  grovel  in  a  night  of  ignorance  unenlightened  with  a  single  ray 
of  learning.  Cimmerian  clouds  overspread  the  literary  horizon, 
and  quenched  the  sun  of  science.  Immorality  kept  pace  with 
ignorance,  and  extended  itself  to  the  priesthood  and  to  the 
people.  The  flood-gates  of  moral  pollution  seemed  to  have  been 
set  wide  open,  and  inundations  of  all  impurity,  poured  on  the 
Christian  world  through  thq  channels  of  the  Roman  Hierarchy. 
The  enormity  of  the  clergy  was  faithfully  copied  by  the  laity. 
Both  sunk  into  equal  degeneracy,  and  the  popedom  appeared 
one  vast,  deep,  frightful,  overflowing  ocean  of  corruption,  horror, 
and  contamination.1  Ignorance  and  immorality  are  the  parents 
of  error  and  superstition.  The  mind  void  of  information,  and 
the  heart  destitute  of  sanctity,  are  prepared  to  embrace  any 
fabrication  or  absurdity, 

Such  was  the  mingled  mass  of  darkness,  depravity,  and 
superstition,  which  produced  the  portentous  monster  of  tran- 
substantiation. Pascasius,  in  the  ninth  century,  seems  to  have 
been  the  father  of  this  deformity,  which  he  hatched  in  his 
melancholy  cell.  His  claim  to  the  honour  and  improvement 
of  this  paradox  is  admitted  by  Sirmond,  Bellarmine,  and  Bruys.* 

1  Baron.  An.  900.      Platina,  in  Bened.     Geneb.  An.  901. 

2  Genuinum  ecclesise  Chvtholicae  sensum  ita  primus  explicuit,  ut  viam  caeteris 
aperuerit.     Sirmon.  in  Radb. 


406  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Pascasius,  says  Sirmond,  '  was  the  first  who,  on  this  question, 
explained  the  genuine  sense  of  the  church.'  This  monk, 
according  to  Bellarmine,  '  was  the  first  who,  in  an  express  and 
copious  manner,  wrote  on  the  truth  of  the  Lord's  body  and 
blood.'  Men,  says  Mabillon,  '  were  from  reading  his  work, 
led  to  a  more  full  and  profound  knowledge  of  the  subject.' 
Bruys  candidly  confesses  that  transubstantiation  was  a  discovery 
of  the  ninth  century,  and  unknown  in  the  darker  ages  of  anti- 
quity.' The  celebrated  Erasmus  entertained  a  similar  opinion. 
He  represents  4  the  church  as  late  in  defining  transubstantiation, 
and  accounting  it  enough,  during  a  long  period,  to  believe  that 
the  Lord's  true  body  was  present  under  the  consecrated  bread 
or  in  any  other  way.'1  Scotus  acknowledges,  that  transub- 
stantiation was  no  article  of  faith  before  the  council  of  the 
Lateran  in  1215. 

The  celebrated  Arnold,  in  his  perpetuity  of  the  faith,  has 
endeavoured  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  transubstantiation  from 
the  tranquillity,  which,  he  says,  always  reigned  on  the  subject 
in  the  church.  Its  introduction,  he  alleges,  had  it  be  an  inno- 
vation, would  have  been  attended  with  tremendous  opposition. 
The  commotion  and  noise,  he  seems  to  think,  would  have  been 
little  inferior  to  the  shock  of  an  earthquake,  or  the  explosion  of 
a  world.  Arnold's  attempt,  however,  proves  nothing  but  the 
effrontery  of  its  author,  who,  on  this  occasion,  must  have  been 
at  a  loss  for  an  argument,  and  presumed  much  on  the  reader's 
ignorance.  Mabillon,  more  candid  than  Arnold,  admits  the 
opposition  of  many  against  Pascasius,  who  ascribed  too  much  to 
the  divine  sacrament.  Frudegard,  with  many  others,  doubted, 
and  with  Augustine,  understood  the  words  of  institution  in  a 
metaphorical  sense.  These,  with  the  African  saint,  accounting 
it  shocking  to  eat  the  flesh  that  was  born  of  the  virgin,  and  to 
drink  the  blood  that  was  shed  on  the  cross,  '  reckoned  the  con- 
secrated elements,  the  Lord's  flesh  and  blood  only  in  power  and 
efficacy.  «  Some,'  says  Mabillon,  *  assented,  and  many  doubted. 
Some  resisted  Pascasius,  and  many  were  brought  to  understand 
the  mystery.'2 

Primus  autor  qui  serio  et  copiose  scripsit  de  veritate  corporis  et  sanguinis  Dom- 
ini. Bel.  in  Pas.  Ex  hoc  lectione  ad  pleniorum  peritionemque  ejus  cognitionem 
perducti  fuerint.  Mabillon,  3.  67. 

Le  dogrne  de  la  transubstantiation,  ou  de  la  presence  reelle,  etoit  ineonnua- 
vant  le  IX,  Siecle.  Bruy.  2.  349. 

1  Sero  transubstantionem  definivit  ecclesia.     Diu  satis  erat  credere,  sive  sub 
pane  consecrato  sive  quocunque  modo  adesse  venim  corpus  Christi.     Erasm.  6. 
696.  in  Corin.  7.     Bellarmin,  III.  23. 

2  Qui  dicunt  esse  virtutem  carnis,  non  carnem,  virtutem  sanguinis,  non  sangui- 
nem.     Pascasius  in  Matth,  26.      Plusieurs  entendoient,  avec  Saint  Augustin,  lea 
paroles  de  Vinstitution  dans  un  sens  de  figure.     Moreri,  7.  68.     Multi  dubitant. 
Mabillon,  3,  67.     Pascasius  ad  Frudegard.     Du  Pin,  2.  80. 

Multi  ex  hoc  dubitant.  Nonnullis  haud  placuit  quod  dixei'at.  Fatendum  est 
quosdam  contra  insurrexisse  et  scripsisse  adversus  Pascasium.  Mabillon,  3.  67 


PASCASIAN  CONTROVERSY  ON  TRANSUBSTANTI ATION.   407 

The  Pascalian  innovation  was  opposed  by  nearly  all  the  piety 
and  erudition  of  the  age.  A  constellation  of  theologians  rose  in 
arms  against  the  absurdity.  Raban,  Walafrid,  Herebald,  Pru- 
dentius,  Florus,  Scotus,  and  Bertramn,  the  ablest  theologians 
of  the  day,  arrayed  themselves  against  the  novelty.  All  these, 
the  literary  suns  of  the  age,  resisted  the  Pascasian  theology. 
Raban,  Archbishop  of  Meritz,  who  was  deeply  skilled  in  Latin, 
Greek,  and  Hebrew,  had  a  taste  for  poetry,  and  was  accounted 
the  glory  of  Germany,  resisted  the  Pascasian  theory  with 
determined  hostility.  Heribald  and  Raban,  says  Marca, l  wrote 
against  Pascasius,  while  Pascasius  and  feaban,  divided  the 
people  into  two  factions.'1 

Scotus  and  Bertramn  were  the  most  distinguished  opposers  of 
Pascasius.  Scotus  was  eminent  for  his  skill  in  languages  and 
theology.  He  was  the  companion  of  Carolus,  the  French  sove- 
reign, who  patronized  his  work  against  Pascasius.  During  his 
whole  life,  he  incurred  no  suspicion  of  heresy  ;  and  his  work, 
for  two  hundred  years,  circulated  through  Christendom  without 
any  mark  of  reprobation  from  pope  or  council,  from  clergy  or 
laity.2 

Bertramn,  like  Scotus,  replied  to  Pascasius  at  the  instance  of 
the  French  king.  He  was  esteemed  for  his  sanctity,  and  for  his 

G found  attainments  in  science  and  theology.  His  book  on  the 
y  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  in  answer  to  the  Pascasian  specu- 
lation, was  widely  disseminated  through  the  Christian  world, 
and  was  never  during  that  age,  condemned  for  heresy.3  The 
free  and  extensive  circulation,  which  these  publications  of  Scotus 
and  Bertramn  obtained  without  even  an  insinuation  of  error, 
must  to  every  unprejudiced  mind,  supply  an  irrefragable  proof 
of  their  conformity  to  the  theology  of  the  ninth  century. 

The  treatment  of  Betramn's  work  after  the  Reformation 
argued  little  for  the  unity  of  Romanism.  This  production, 
which,  during  the  dark  ages,  hau  lain  concealed  and  unknown, 
was  discovered  in  1533,  and  published  by  the  Protestants  of 
Germany.  The  Reformed,  who  rescued  it  from  oblivion,  ac- 
counted it  favourable  to  their  system.  The  Romish  reckoned 
it  a  work  of  heresy,  and  a  forgery  of  GEcolompadius.  This 
production,  though  afterwards  extolled  as  the  perfection  of 
orthodoxy,  was  condemned  as  heretical  by  a  pope,  by  councils, 
cardinals,  the  expurgatorian  index,  and  a  whole  phalanx  of 
theologians. 

Clement  the  Eighth  exercised  his  infallibillity  on  Bertramn's 

1  Heribaldus  et  Rabanus  statim  contrariis  adversus  Pascasium  scriptis  certave- 
runt.     Pascasio  et  Rabano  ducibus,  fideles  populos  in  duos  veluti  factiones  scind«- 
bat.     Marca,  Bp.  in  Dachery,  3.  853. 

2  Du  Pin,  2.  87.     Dachery,  4.  513.     Labb.  11.  1425. 
*  Bruys.  2.  38.     Morery/7.  40 


408  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

production,  and  denounced  it,  after  due  examination,  for  heresy. 
The  synod  of  Treves,  for  the  same  reason,  interdicted  its  circu- 
lation. The  general  council  of  Trent,  by  its  expurgatorian 
index,  pronounced  its  reprobation  and  prohibition.  This  assem- 
bly, which  was  clothed  with  infallibility,  had  as  great  a  concern 
in  the  index,  which  proscribed  Bertramn's  work,  as  in  its  cate- 
chism. The  sentence,  therefore,  may  be  considered  as  sanc- 
tioned by  its  supreme  authority.  These  pontifical  and  synodal 
decisions  were  approved  by  the  cardinals  Bellarmine,  Quiroga, 
Sandoval,  Alan,  and  Perron.  The  theologians  of  Louvain,  who 
conducted  the  Belgic  expurgatorian  index,  submitted  the  per- 
formance, which  these  doctors  represented  as  interpolated,  to 
correction.  These  censors  expunged  many  of  the  pretended 
interpolations,  which,  in  their  estimation,  contained  rank  heresy ; 
and  allowed  its  publicity  in  this  state  of  mutilation.  This  sen- 
tence of  error  and  Protestantism  was  re-echoed  by  Turrian, 
Sixtus,  Genebrard,  Espenceus,  Marca,  Possevin,  Claudius, 
Valentia,  Paris,  and  Harduin.  All  these,  in  concert  indeed 
with  the  whole  popish  communion,  continued,  for  the  exten- 
ded period  of  more  than  one  hundred  and  forty  years,  to 
represent  Bertramn's  treatise  as  a  forgery  and  full  of  error  and 
heresy.1 

But  this  book,  decried  in  this  manner  in  the  popish  commu- 
nion, for  heterodoxy,  was  in  process  of  time,  transformed  by  a 
sudden  revolution  in  public  opinion,  into  orthodoxy.  A  church, 
which  boasts  its  unity  and  unchangeableness,  proceeded,  after 
the  lapse  of  many  years,  to  transubstantiate  Bertramn's  work, 
without  any  useless  ceremony,  into  Catholicism.  Mabillon,  in 
1680,  by  the  aid  of  manuscripts  and  arguments,  evinced,  beyond 
all  contradiction,  the  genuineness  of  the  work ;  and  endeavoured, 
by  partial  statements  and  perverted  criticism,  to  shew  its  ortho- 
doxy.2 The  learned  Benedictine's  discovery  effected,  on  this 
point,  a  sudden  change  in  P^omish  Christendom.  The  book, 
which,  for  near  a  century  and  a  half,  had  been  denounced  as 
unsound  and  suppositious,  became,  all  at  once,  both  true  and 
genuine.  The  church  transformed  heresy  into  Catholicism  with 
as  much  facility,  and  in  nearly  as  short  a  time,  as  a  priest  tran- 
substantiates a  wafer  into  a  God. 

The  controversy,  for  two  hundred  years  after  the  Pascasian  age, 
seems  to  have  slept.  The  noisy  polemic,  on  this  topic,  resigned 
his  pen,  and  Christendom,  entombed  in  Egyptian  darkness,  sunk 
into  immorality  and  superstition.  Tran substantiation,  in  this 
destitution  of  literature,  continued  to  gain  ground :  till,  at  last, 

i  Moreri,  7.  40.  Boileau,  8.  Bell.  I.  1.  Du  Pin,  2,  81,  86.  Turrian,  I.  22 
Possey,  1.  219. 

*  Mabillon,  3.  68.     Dachery,  4.  17. 


BERENGARIAN  CONTROVERSY  ON  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  409 

its  pestilential  breath  infected  all  orders  and  ranks  of  men.  The 
priesthood  soon  perceived  its  tendency  to  the  advancement  of 
sacerdotal  influence  and  emolument.  Their  alleged  power  of 
creating  God  excited  the  veneration  and  liberality  of  the  admir- 
ing populace.  Miracles  were  supposed  to  be  wrought  by  the 
consecrated  wafer  ;  and  this,  opening  another  source  of  imposi- 
tion and  astonishment,  endeared  the  wonder-working  theology 
to  the  clergy  and  laity.  The  dogma,  indeed,  is  calculated  for 
the  meridian  of  superstition.  The  idea  of  a  visible  deity  must 
be  ever  welcome  to  an  ignorant  crowd.  The  innovation,  be- 
sides, made  no  direct  or  violent  attack  on  the  popular  prepos- 
sessions. The  error  effected  no  mutilation  of  the  ancient  faith  ; 
but  an  addition,  which  is  calculated  to  become  the  idol  of  super- 
stition. The  Pascasian  theory  superinduced  the  corporeal  on 
the  spiritual  presence,  and  tended,  not  to  the  diminution,  but  to 
the  augmentation  of  the  fabric  of  faith,  the  structure  of  super- 
stition, and  the  mass  of  mystery.  The  novelty  added  a  change 
of  substance  to  the  ancient  admitted  change  of  use  and  significa- 
tion, and  was  fitted  for  becoming  the  food  of  credulity. 

The  controversy  was  awakened  from  the  sleep  of  two  hundred 
years  by  Berengarius  in  the  eleventh  century.  This  celebrated 
character  was  principal  in  the  public  school  of  Tours,  and  after- 
ward archdeacon  of  Angers.  He  was  distinguished,  according 
to  Paris,  for  genius,  learning,  piety,  charity,  holiness,  and  humi- 
lity. Following  Bertramri  and  Scotus  on  the  sacrament,  he 
publicly,  in  1045,  opposed  Pascasius.  Many  adopted  and  many 
rejected  his  system.  Romanism  displayed  a  diversity  of  faith 
inconsistent  with  modern  boasts  of  unity.  The  clergy  and  the 
laity,  in  the  ninth  century,  united,  in  general,  against  Pascasi- 
anism  ;  but  differed,  about  two  hundred  years  after,  about 
Berengarianism.  This  shews  the  progress,  which  transubstan- 
tiation  in  this  period,  had  made  in  the  spiritual  dominions  of  the 
popedom.  The  controversy  was  agitated  in  many  verbal  and 
written  disputations.1  Berengarianism,  however,  according  to 
cotemporary  and  succeeding  historians,  was  the  general  faith  of 
England,  France,  and  Italy.  All  France,  says  Sigebert,  aboun- 
ded in  Berengarians  :  and  the  same  is  repeated  by  Matthew  of 
Paris  and  William  of  Malmesbury.  Alan  represents  the  evil 
as  extended,  not  only  to  France,  but  also  to  the  neighbouring 
nations.  The  heresy,  says  Matthew  of  Westminster,  had  cor- 
rupted nearly  all  the  French,  Italians,  and  English.2 

Berengarianism  was  denounced,  with  determined  hostility 
and  tremendous  anathemas,  by  the  Roman  pontiffs.     Its  author 

1  Berengarius  commen^a  a  dogmatizer  de  1'eucharistie  selou  la  doctrine  quo 
Bertramiris  et  1'Escot  avoient  170  ans  auparavaiit  enseignee.     Vignier,  2.  696. 

2  Contra  eum  et  pro  eo,  multum  a  multis  et  verbis  et  scriptis,  disputandum  est 
Sigebert,  An.  1051. 


410  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

was  persecuted  by  Leo,  Victor,  Nicholas,  and  Alexander.  He 
was  compelled  to  sign  three  different  and  conflicting  confess/on s, 
in  three  Roman  councils  under  Nicholas  and  Gregory. 

Nicholas,  in  1058,  convened  a  council  at  the  Lateran  a,gainst 
Berengarius.  This  assembly  consisted  of  one  hundred  and  thir- 
teen bishops  ;  and  the  patron  of  the  reputed  heresy  was  sum- 
moned to  attend.  He  complied  ;  and  supported  his  system 
with  a  strength  of  reason  and  eloquence,  which,  Sigonius,  Leo, 
and  Henry  attest,  withered  all  opposition.  All  shrunk  in  terror, 
while  the  Vatican  resounded  with  the  thunder  of  his  oratory. 
His  infallibility  urged  his  clergy  to  the  contest.  He  endea- 
voured to  rouse  his  veterans  to  the  battle.  But  no  David  ap- 
peared against  this  Goliath.  No  hero  of  orthodoxy  dared,  in 
single  combat,  to  encounter  this  dreadful  son  of  heresy.  His 
holiness,  in  this  exigency,  sent  an  express  for  Alberic,  a  cardinal 
deacon  of  great  erudition,  who,  it  was  hoped,  could  face  this 
fearful  champion  of  error.1  Alberic,  after  a  warm  discussion, 
solicited  a  cessation  of  arms  for  a  week,  to  employ  his  pen 
against  the  enemy.2 

The  council,  findingthe  insufficiency  of  their  dialectics,  threat- 
ened the  application  of  more  tangible  and  convincing  arguments, 
which  they  could  wield  with  more  facility.  Anathemas,  excom- 
munication, fire,  and  fagot  were  brought  into  requisition.  The 
mention  of  this  kind  of  logic  soon  converted  Berengarius,  who 
was  unambitious  of  the  honour  of  martyrdom.  Humbert  was 
appointed  to  compose  a  confession  for  Berengarius,  and  executed 
his  task  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  infallibility  and  the  whole 
council.  This  formulary  declared,  that  '  the  bread  and  wine  on 
the  altar  are  the  Lord's  real  body  and  blood,  which,  not  only  in 
a  sacramental,  but  also  in  a  sensible  mariner,  are  broken  by  the 
hands  of  the  priest  and  ground  by  the  teeth  of  the  faithful.*3 
His  infallibility  and  his  clergy  were  for  submitting  the  flesh  of 
Emmanuel,  when  created  by  their  power  of  transubstantiation, 
to  the  action  of  the  teeth,  particularly  the  grinders.  His  flesh, 
it  appears,  is,  according  to  the  sacred  synod,  subject  to  mastica- 
tion, deglutition,  digestion,  and  all  the  necessary  consequences. 
His  holiness  and  his  council  seem  to  have  entertained  the  same 
refined  sentiments  as  the  ancient  citizens  of  Capernaum,  who 

1  Afficiebatur  omnis  Gallra  ejus  doctrina.  M.  Paris,  12,  Scatebat  omnis  Gallia 
ejus  doctrina.  Malm.  III.  P.  63.  Omnis  pene  Gallia  ac  vicinae  gentes  eo  malo 
quam  citissime  laborarent.  Alan,  de  Each.  I.  21.  Omnes  Gallos,  Italos,  et  An 
glos  suis  jam  pene  corruperat  pravitatibus.  Westm.  in  Ush.  c.  7. 

8  Ei,  cum  nullus  valeret  obsistere,  Albericus  evocabatur  ad  synodum.  Leo.  III. 
33.  Non  erat,  qui  Berengario  responderet,  licet  Papa  fortiter  institisset.  Henry, 
II.  5.  Nullus  Berengario  resistere  valeret.  Mabillon,  5.  139.  Sigonius,  IX 
Bin.  7.  273. 

3  Fidelium  dentibus  atteritur.  Gibert,  3.  330.  Crabb.  2-  766.  Labb.  12  46 
kanfranc,  233.  Dachery,  4.  515.  Canisius,  4.  468. 


BERENGARIAN  CONTROVERSY  ON  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  411 

understood  the  Lord's  words  in  a  literal  sense.  Christians, 
according  to  the  holy  Roman  council,  enjoy  a  carnival  in  the 
sacrament,  similar  to  the  festivals  of  the  polite  cannibals  of 
Fegee  and  New  Zealand.  The  confession  remains  a  foul  stain 
on  the  synod  from  which  it  emanated,  and  a  filthy  blot  in  the 
annals  of  the  papacy. 

Lombard  censured  the  grossness  of  this  confession.  Simica 
denounced  it,  if  not  interpreted  with  caution  and  ingenuity,  as  a 
greater  heresy  than  Berengarianism.  Aquinas  refers  the  attri- 
tion of  the  teeth  to  the  species  or  accidents.  The  angelic  doctors 
invented  a  plan,  by  which  the  jaws  could  chew  form  without 
substance,  and  masticate  colour,  taste,  and  smell.  The  synod 
of  Arras,  however,  in  1025,  denied  that  *  the  Lord's  body  is  con- 
sumed by  the  mouth  or  ground  by  the  teeth.'  The  moderns 
have  abandoned  the  absurdity.  Caron  characterizes  the  Roman 
synod's  creed,  as  a  heresy.  Challenor  warns  the  communicant 
against  '  chewing  with  the  teeth ;'  though,  in  so  doing,  he  sub- 
jects himself  to  an  anathema  of  a  holy  Roman  council.1 

This  precious  specimen  of  blasphemy  and  absurdity,  issued 
by  a  Roman  council  headed  by  a  Roman  pontiff,  Beren- 
garius,  through  human  frailty  and  horror  of  death,  signed  and 
swore  to  maintain.  This  profession,  however,  was  only  hypo- 
crisy and  extorted  by  intimidation.  Shielded  by  the  protection 
of  his  ancient  patrons,  he  relapsed  into  heresy,  declared  his  de- 
testation of  the  creed  which  he  had  subscribed,  and  characterized 
the  Roman  synod  as  an  assembly  of  vanity,  and  the  popedom  as 
the  throne  of  Satan. 

Berengarius  signed  a  second  confession,  in  the  year  1078. 
Gregory  the  Seventh  assembled  a  Roman  council  for  the  pur- 
pose of  terminating  the  controversy.  This  synod  differed  from 
the  former  in  its  decisions.  Gregory  and  his  clergy  allowed 
Berengarius  to  renounce  his  former  confession  and  substitute 
another.  This,  in  reality,  was  a  virtual,  if  not  a  formal  con- 
demnation and  repeal  of  the  creed  prescribed  by  Nicholas  and 
his  synod,  and  sanctioned  by  their  authority.  This  new  confes- 
sion, which  Berengarius  composed  and  signed, merely  signified 
that  'the  bread  and  wine,  after  consecration,  became  the  Lord's 
true  body  and  blood.'2  This  form  of  belief  might  have  been 
subscribed  by  Zuinglius,  Calvin,  Cranmer,  or  Knox.  The 
Zuinglians,  in  fact,  at  Marpurg,  admitted  the  true  presence  of 
the  body  and  blood  in  the  sacrament.  Expressions  of  a  similar 

1  Attritio  dentium  referatur  ad  speciem.  Aquin.  3.  372.  Haec  gratia  non  con- 
sumitur  morsibus,  nee  dentibus  teritur.  Dachery,  1.  611.  Labb.  11.  1161,  1426 
Caron,  90.  Chellen.  61. 

*  Profitebatur.  panem  altaris  post  consecrationem  esse  verum  corpus  Christ! 
Cowart,  2  98  Mabillon,  5.  125. 


412  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

or  identical  kind  may  be  found  in  the  reformed  confessions  of 
'  Switzerland,  France,  Strasburg,  Holland,  and  England.1 

The  Roman  clergy  were  divided  in  their  opinion  of  this  con- 
fession. One  party  acknowledged  its  Catholicism ;  while  another 
faction  maintained  its  heresy.  The  latter  insisted  on  the  pre- 
scription of  another  creed,  which  might  be  free  from  ambiguity. 
Its  error  and  inadequacy  have,  in  modern  times,  been  conceded 
by  Alexander,  Cossart,  and  Mabillon.  Alexander  complains  of 
its  trickery,  Cossart,  like  many  others,  of  its  heresy,  and  Mabillon 
of  its  equivocation  and  insufficiency.2 

Gregory  seems  to  have  embraced  the  same  opinions  as  Beren- 
garius  on  the  communion.  His  infallibility  declared  '  that  he 
entertained  no  doubt  but  Berengarius  had,  on  this  institution, 
adopted  the  scriptural  idea,  and  all  that  was  necessary  for  the 
faith  of  Catholicism.'3  This,  in  his  holiness,  was  an  unequivocal 
profession  of  Berengarianism. 

Pope  Gregory  was  countenanced  in  his  heterodoxy  by  Lady 
Mary.  His  infallibiliiy,  actuated  by  hypocrisy  or  fanaticism, 
was  accustomed,  on  every  difficult  or  important  emergency,  to 
consult  her  ladyship.  Mary,  on  this  occasion,  answered  with 
oracular  decision,  that '  nothing  should  be  acknowledged  on  this 
subject,  but  what  is  contained  in  authentic  scripture, — against 
which  Berengarius  had  no  objection.'4  The  mother  of  God,  it 
appears,  a  thousand  years  after  her  assumption,  became  a  here- 
tic, opposed  transubstantiation,  and  patronized  Berengarianism. 
This  was  a  sad  defection  in  the  queen  of  heaven  and  star  of  the 
sea.  The  blessed  Virgin  should  have  been  transported  to 
purgatory  or  the  inquisition,  to  atone  for  her  apostacy  from  the 
faith. 

His  infallibility,  whatever  may  have  become  of  her  ladyship, 
was,  in  1080,  condemned  for  Berengarianism  by  thirty  bishops, 
in  the  council  of  Brescia.  This  assembly  found  his  holiness 
guilty  of  attachment  to  '  the  Berengarian  heresy,  and  of  calling 
in  question  the  apostolic  truth  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood.'5 

1  Neque  negare  volunt  verum  corpus  et  sanguinem  Christi  adesse.     Seckendorf, 
138.     Chouet,  67,  109,  110,  120,  204. 

2  Fidei  professionem  edidit  subdolis  verbis  conceptam.     Alex.  18.  246.     Quidam 
Catholicam  agnoverunt,  Bed  alii  latere  in  ilia  veneni  aliquid  haeretici.     Coss.  2.  28. 
Berengarius  brevem  fidei  euae  foramlam  sed  insufficientem  ediderat.     Sub  his  veri 
cnrporis  et  sanguinis  verbis  sequivoca  latere,  non  immerito  crederetur.     Mabillon, 
5.  25,  139. 

3  Ego  plane  te  de  Christi  sacrificio  secundum  scripturas  bene  sentire  non  dubito. 
Marten.     Thesaur.  4.  108.     Fidei   professionem   ab   ipso   Berengario   editam,   ad 
fidem  Catholicam  sufficere  dixisset  Gregorius.     Mabillon,  5.  140. 

4  Nihil  de  Christi  sacrificio  cogitandum,  nihil  tenenrlum  prseter  id  quod  habe- 
rent  authenticse  scriptures,  contra  quas  Berengarius  nihil  s*;iitiret.     Mabillon,  5. 
140.     Marten,  4.  108. 

6  Oatholicam  de  eucharistia  fidem  in  quaestionem  poneret,  **  Berengaru  antiquus 
oiscipulus  esset.  Mabillon,  5.  140.  Coss.  2.  48.  Labb.  12.  646. 


BERENGARIAN  CONTROVERSY  ON  TRANSUBSTANTIATION.      413 

The  vicar-general  of  God  and  the  queen  of  Heaven,  in  this  man- 
ner, patronized  a  heretic  and  encouraged  one  another  in  hetero- 
doxy. 

Gregory's  partiality  to  Berengarianism  appears  also  from  his 
treatment  of  its  author.  He  honoured  him  with  his  friendship, 
and  protected  him  against  his  persecutors.  He  anathematized 
all  who  should  injure  his  person  or  estate,  or  call  him  a  heretic. 
He  recommended  him  to  the  protection  of  the  Bishop  of  Tours 
and  Angers  against  the  enmity  of  Count  Fulco.  He  shewed  no 
resentment  against  his  renunciation  of  his  former  profession. 
He  refused  to  attempt  any  thing  against  Berengarius,  and  left 
his  enemies,  who  endeavoured  to  overwhelm  him  with  invective 
arid  perplex  him  with  sophistry,  to  fret,  and  fume,  and  growl 
without  a  remedy  or  opportunity  to  gratify  their  malevolence.1 
.  Gregory,  however,  importuned  by  some  of  the  disaffected 
clergy ,  who  persecuted  Berengarius  and  hated  his  theology,  was 
induced,  notwithstanding  his  predilection  for  this  author  and  his 
system,  to  summon  another  council  for  the  final  settlement  of 
the  controversy.  A  Roman  synod  accordingly  met  in  1079. 
This  assembly  consisted  of  the  prelacy  from '  the  adjoining  and 
different  other  regions,'  and  therefore  represented  the  faith, 
which,  on  this  topic,  was,  in  the  eleventh  century,  entertained 
in  various  nations  of  the  Christian  commonwealth. 

The  holy  Roman  synod,  however,  displayed,  in  the  Lateran, 
the  head-quarters  of  Catholicism,  the  utmost  diversity  of  senti- 
ment. Some  held  one  opinion,  and  some  another.  One  party 
maintained  transubstantiation.  The  other  patronized  Beren- 
garianism ;  and  endeavoured,  according  to  the  partial  accounts 
of  these  transactions,  to  support  their  error  and  deceive  them- 
selves and  others  with  cavils.  The  majority  advocated  a  sub- 
stantial change  of  the  eleme-nts  in  the  communion.  The  minority 
represented  the  bread  and  wine  only  as  signs,  and  the  substan- 
tial body  as  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  The  disputation 
continued  for  three  days.  The  council,  in  the  end,  came  to  an 
agreement,  which,  when  compared  with  the  two  former  decisions, 
seems  to  have  been  effected  by  mutual  concessions.  A  confes- 
sion was  imposed  on  Berengarius,  declaring  the  change  in  the 
bread  and  wine  after  consecration,  to  be,  not  merely  sacramental 
and  figurative,  but  also  true  and  substantial.2 

This  confession  differed,  both  by  omission  and  addition,  from 
the  former,  issued  under  Nicholas  and  Gregory  in  two  holy 
Roman  councils.  The  impiety  of  breaking  the  Lord's  body  with 

1  Dn  Pin,  2.  199.     Labb.  12.  630.     Dachery,  4.  514. 

2  Multis  h;ec,  nonnullis  ilia  sentientibus.     Quiclam  vero  cascitate  nimia  et  longa 
perculsi,  figuram  tantum,  substantiate  illud  corpus  in  dextera.     Patris  sedens  ease ; 
ee  et  alios  decipieutes  quibusdam  cavillationibus.     Labb.  12.  629.     Bin.  7.  488. 


414  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERYt 

the  hands  and  grinding  it  with  the  teeth,  enjoined  by  Nicholas 
and  his  clergy  in  1 059,  was  omitted  ;  and  the  epithet  substantial 
was  added  to  the  prior  formulary  enacted  in  1078.  This  is  no 
convincing  proof  of  unity.  The  third  is  a  medium  between  the 
other  two,  and  seems  to  have  been  a  compromise  for  the  sake 
of  peace  and  harmony.  Two  factions  opposed  each  other  in 
this  theological  campaign.  Each,  for  the  purpose  of  terminating 
the  war,  made  concessions  ;  and  the  result  was  a  creed  inter- 
mediate between  the  two  previous  forms  of  belief. 

Transubstantiation,  after  the  death  of  Berengarius,  advanced 
by  slow  and  gradual  steps  to  maturity.  Some  continued  to  re- 
sist its  inroads  on  the  truth  of  Christian  theology.  But  the 
majority  of  the  clergy  and  laity,  in  the  spirit  of  perversity  and 
the  phrcnzy  of  superstition,  adopted  the  deformity.  Its  patrons, 
however,  found  great  difficulty  in  moulding  the  monster  into 
form.  Many  editions  of  the  novelty  were  circulated  through 
Christendom  ;  and  all  exhibited  the  changes  of  correction  and 
the  charms  of  variety.  The  council  of  the  Lateran,  in  1215, 
enrolled  it  among  the  canons  of  the  Romish  communion  :  and 
the  Lateran  decision  was  confirmed  at  Constance  and  finally 
established  at  Trent.1 

The  partizans  of  transubstantiation,  having  by  numbers,  if  not 
by  reason,  defeated  the  enemy,  quarrelled  among  themselves. 
The  foreign  war  against  the  adversary  was  followed  by  internal 
sedition  among  its  friends.  The  subject,  indeed,  opened  a  wide 
field  for  refinement  and  ingenuity.  Some  believed,  some 
doubted,  and  some  speculated.  Lombard  could  not  define 
whether  the  transmutation  of  the  sacramental  elements  was 
substantial,  or  formal,  or  of  some  other  kind.  Aquinas  and 
Gabriel,  says  Erasmus,  grant  the  diversity  of  opinions  on  this 
question,  even  among  orthodox  theologians.  Cajetan  admits 
similar  variations.  Guitmond  and  Algerus,  in  the  eleventh 
century,  mention  many  variations  of  opinion  circulated  on  this 
topic  in  their  day.  Some,  according  to  these  contemporary 
historians,  imagined  that  the  transformation  extended  only  to  a 
part,  and  some  to  the  whole  of  the  elements.  Some  allowed  a 
change  in  the  wine  of  the  communion,  but  such  as  in  the  water 
of  baptism.  One  party  fancied  that  the  bread  and  wine,  though 
changed  to  the  worthy,  resumed  their  own  substance  when  pre- 
sented to  the  wicked.  Another  faction,  in  the  wild  wanderings 
of  imagination  and  extravagancy,  admitted  a  transmutation  of 
tne  bread  and  wine  into  flesh  and  blood  ;  but  not  into  those  of 
the  Son  of  God.  One  class  alleged  the  same  union  between 
the  consecrated  elements  and  the  Divine  Emmanuel  as  between 

1  C-»bb.  2.946.     Labb.  18.  519.     Bin.  9.  380.     Labb.  13.  930. 


DIVERSITY   OF    OPINIONS    ON     TRANS  INSTANTIATION.        415 

his  Deity  and  humanity,  or  a  hypostatical  union  of  the  Mediatol 
to  the  substance  of  the  bread.  Another  alleged,  that  not  the 
substance,  but  the  entity  remained,  but  changed  into  Christ's 
body.  Some  believed  the  digestion  and  the  corruption  of  the 
bread  and  wine;  while  others  denied  this  theory.  Some  spec- 
ulators thought  that  the  metamorphosis  was  effected  by  the 
change  of  the  elements,  and  some  by  their  annihilation.  The 
creed-makers,  on  this  innovation,  seem,  according  to  their  taste 
or  fancy,  to  have  embraced  impannation,  consubstantiation,  or 
transubstantiation.  Many  of  the  sage  and  useful  theologians 
of  the  day  diversified  their  systems  with  lofty  speculations  on 
the  sublime  and  fragrant  topic  of  stercoranism,  with  all  its 
attendant  and  lovely  train  of  grandeur  and  purity.1 

The  schoolmen  subtilized  theory  into  nonsense  and  hair- 
breadth distinctions.  These  doctors  brought  all  their  attenuated 
discriminations  into  requisitions  on  this  mystery,  and  divided 
and  subdivided  without  end  or  meaning,  on  the  topics  of  mat- 
ter, form,  substance,  and  accidents.  The  real  body,  according 
to  Scotus,  is  present  by  circumscription  ;  but  according  to 
Aquinas  and  his  followers,  not  by  circumscription,  but  by  pene- 
tration, and  the  modality,  not  of  quantity,  but  of  substance.2 
These  metaphysicians,  of  course,  knew  their  own  meaning  in 
these  '  words  of  learned  length  and  thundering  sound.'  Scho- 
lasticism, indeed,  like  metaphysics,  is  a  learned  and  ingenious 
way  of  talking  nonsense,  and  of  shewing  an  author's  ignorance. 

The  Dominicans  and  Franciscans,  as  usual,  encountered  each 
other  in  theological  combat  on  this  subject  at  the  council  of 
Trent.  The  Dominicans  contended,  that  the  substance  of  the 
bread  is  changed  by  transmutation,  into  the  substance  of  the 
Lord's  body.  No  new  matter,  according  to  this  system,  is  added, 
but  the  old  transformed. \  The  Franciscans  maintained  that 
transubstantiation  is  effected,  not  by  the  conversion  of  the  bread 
into  the  Lord's  body,  but  by  the  recession  of  the  former,  and 
the  accessions  of  the  latter.  The  bread,  except  the  species, 
politely  retires,  according  to  this  theory,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  place  to  the  flesh  of  Emmanuel.  Dominican  and  Fran- 
ciscan enmity,  in  this  manner,  evaporated  in  mutual  nonsense 
and  contradiction. 

The  jargon  of  the  two  schools  on  substance,  form,  matter, 

1  An  formalis,  an  substantiate,  an  al-terius  generis,  definire  non  eufficio.  Lorn 
bard,  IV.  Nee  ipse  Thomas,  nee  hoc  recentior  Gabriel  dissimultint  v arias  theolo- 
gorum,  hac  de  re,  fuisse  sententias  etiam  orthodoxorum.  Erasm.  9.  1065. 

Varise  fuerunt  opiniones  eraditorum.  Cajetan,  in  Aquin.  3.  348.  Alger.  Prol 
Bruy.  2.  398.  Du  Pin.  2.  203,  204. 

Substantiain  et  naturam  panis  hypostatice  unire  Christo.     Faber,  IV.  D.  11,  c.  3 

Alii  dixerunt,  nee  substantiam  panis  rmmere  sed  entitatem  panis  nianere  tainen 
conversam  in  corpus  Christi.  Faber,  1.  183.  Aquinas,  3.  385. 

•  Aquin.  III.  66.  V.  P.  350,  360,  363.     Cajetan  in  Aquin.  3.  348. 


4-16  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY*. 

nature,  body,  quantity,  magnitude,  locality,  annihilation,  and 
transformation  was  unintelligible  to  all  others,  though  clear  to 
its  several  advocates,  who,  with  reason,  represented  the  contrary 
as  attended  with  infinite  absurdity.  Forms  of  faith  were  com- 
posed, which,  adopting  something  from  each,  might  satisfy  both. 
But  the  accornodation  pleased  neither  party.  The  genera] 
congregation  therefore  resolved  to  employ  only  a  few  words  and 
general  expressions,  suited,  as  much  as  possible,  to  the  ideas  or 
rather  to  the  balderdash  of  the  several  contending  factions.1 
Such,  on  the  important  subject  of  the  sacrament,  was  the  har- 
mony and  management  of  the  holy,  apostolical,  infallible,  Roman 
council  of  Trent. 

The  advocates  of  the  corporeal  presence,  jarring  in  this  way, 
about  the  doctrine,  differ  also  about  its  evidence.  Some  found 
their  faith  on  Revelation ;  some  on  tradition  ;  some  on  miracles  ; 
and  others  again  on  these  united.  Its  modern  partizans  com- 
monly endeavour  to  found  their  system  on  scriptural  authority. 
The  scriptural  arguments,  on  the  contrary,  were  resigned  by 
Scotus,  Bellarmine,  Alliaco,  Cajetan,  Occam,  Alphonsus, 
Durand,  Biel,  Fisher,  Cusan,  and  Canus,  who  rest  their  belief, 
not  on  the  Bible,  but  on  the  testimony  of  tradition,  and  the 
authority  of  the  church.  The  majority  wish  to  draw  their 
proofs  from  both  scriptural  and  traditional  declarations. 

Many,  on  this  subject,  have  called  in  the  extraordinary  aid  of 
miracles.  The  Lord's  body  and  blood,  according  to  Pascasius, 
the  father  of  the  deformity,  has  often  appeared  visible  on  the 
altar.  '  God,  from  heaven,'  says  Binius,  *  confuted  Berengarius 
by  miracles.'  *  God,'  says  Dens,  *  hath  confirmed  this  truth  by 
open  and  frequent  miracles,  wrought  in  various  places  and 
times.'  Pope  Gregory,  in  600,  convinced  a  Roman  lady  by 
similar  means.  A  Roman  matron,  when  his  holiness  was  cele- 
brating mass,  had  the  audacity  to  smile  at  the  idea  of  calling  a 
morsel  of  bread  the  body  of  the  Lord.  The  pontiff',  pitying  the 
woman's  incredulity,  prayed,  in  conjunction  with  the  people,  to 
God  for  a  sensible  manifestation  of*  the  mystery,  to  overcome 
the  woman's  unbelief.  The  sacramental  bread,  in  consequence, 
'  was  changed  into  bloody  flesh.'2  The  lady,  of  course,  could 
have  no  objection  to  an  argument  of  this  kind,  and  immediately 
believed.  This,  the  silly  and  superstitious  Mabillon  considers 
as  a  powerful  corroboration  of  the  truth. 

Odo,  in  960,  undeceived,  by  this  means,  several  unbelieving 

1  On  ne  put  s'accorder.  Us  nepouvoient  s'entendre  eux-memes.  Paolo,  1.  5SO. 
Du  Pin.  3.  475.  Labb.  17.  818. 

*  Deus  e  caelo  miraculis  Berengarium  confutavit.  Bin.  7.  275.  Veritatem 
prsesentiae  realis,  Deu&  confirmavit  per  aperta  et  frequentia  miracula,  variis  locis  et 
temporibus  facta.  Dens,  5.  283.  Partem  digiti  sanguine  croentara  advert  it 
Mabil.  1.  263.  Nangis,  An.  1098.  Dach.  3.  19. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION  SUPPORTED  BY  PRE TEN  DED  MIRACLES.417 

clergymen.  Seduced  by  the  spirit  of  error,  some  of  the  clergy 
maintained  that  the  bread,  and  wine  even  after  consecration, 
retained  their  substance,  and  were  only  the  signs  of  flesh  and 
blood.  But  Odo  prayed,  and  the  host,  in  consequence,  during 
the  solemnization  of  mass  in  the  priest's  hands,  '  began  to  drop 
blood.'1  The  phenomenon,  it  may  be  easily  conceived,  silenced 
ah1  opposition. 

Wonders  of  a  similar  description  have  sometimes  appeared, 
not  to  remedy  unbelief,  but  to  reward  sanctity.  This  was  the 
case  with  Mary,  Hugo,  and  Nativity.  These  saints  had  the 
pleasure,  during  the  solemnity  of  mass,  to  see  Jesus  in  the  form 
of  an  infant  of  unparalleled  beauty.  The  child,  which  sister 
Nativity  beheld,  was  living  and  clothed  with  rays  of  light ; 
while  eager  to  be  received,  or  in  other  terms,  swallowed,  he 
desired,  in  infantile  accents,  to  be  devoured.  This  ridiculous 
if  not  blasphemous  tale  constitutes  part  of  a  Revelation  which 
has  been  lately  eulogized  by  Rayment,  Hodgson,  Bruning, 
and  Milner.2 

The  variations  of  the  transubstantiated  God  are  diversified  as 
the  opinions  of  his  votaries.  The  Protean  God  of  the  Greeks 
and  Romans,  famed  in  ancient  mythology  and  song  for  his  mul- 
tiplicity of  forms,  has  been  eclipsed  in  his  own  department  by 
the  popish  Deity.  All  the  metamorphoses  recorded  in  Ovidian 
verse  are  nothing  compared  with  the  transformations  of  this 
divinity.  His  godship,  in  his  variations  in  his  pre-exis- 
tent  state  prior  to  his  deification,  presents  a  curious  speci- 
men of  natural  history.  His  materials  are  enclosed  in  a 
wheaten  grain,  and  he  blooms  in  the  wheaten  field.  He  imbibes 
the  sap  of  the  earth,  sucks  the  dews  of  night,  and  drinks  the 
rain  of  the  clouds.  The  future  god,  by  these  means,  ripens  to 
maturity  under  the  suns  of  heaven.  The  flail  and  the  mill  ad- 
vance his  deityship  a  few  more  steps  towards  his  final  apotheosis. 
The  confectioner  moulds  this  new  god  into  new  forms,  and 
introduces  him  to  new  acquaintances.  He  is  exhibited  to  the 
eye  in  a  mass  of  pastry,  composed  of  flour  and  water.  His  chief 
chemical  elements  are  carbon,  hydrogen,  and  oxygen.  He  is, 
however,  in  this  state,  near  his  promotion.  He  is  rounded  into 
a  wafer,  handed  to  the  altar,  and,  at  the  muttering  of  some  sorry 
priest,  wonderful  to  tell,  starts  into  a  god.  The  new-made 
Deity  is  immediately  exhibited  for  adoration  on  the  bended 
knee.  He  is  then  placed  in  the  mouth,  swallowed  down  the 
throat,  and  safely  lodged  in  the  stomach  of  his  manufacturer  and 
worshippers.  He  is  next,  by  digestion  or  some  other  way, 
destined  to  undergo  a  chemical  analysis,  and  to  be  resolved 


1  Sanguis  guttatim  defluere  coepit.     Mabillon.  3.  556.     Osbern,  83. 
«  Andilly,  648,  719.     Dachery,  1.  612. 

27 


418  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

into  his  constituent  principles.  But  his  future  history  and 
transmigrations  may  be  left  to  the  filthy  historian  of  ster- 
coranism. 

Transubstantiation,  varying,  in  this  manner,  from  scriptural 
and  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  and  diversified  by  the  jarring  opin- 
ions of  its  patrons  and  the  transformations  of  its  God,  varies 
also  from  reason  and  common  sense.  Nothing,  indeed,  invented 
by  man  ever  equalled  it  in  irrationality.  The  theoiy  presents 
the  last  test  of  human  credulity,  and  the  grand  consummation 
of  unqualified  absurdity.  Search  the  vast  range  of  religion 
and  philosophy ;  examine  the  wide  amplitude  of  folly  and 
superstition ;  and  you  will  find  no  other  opinion  so  utterly  in- 
compatible with  reason,  so  completely  fraught  with  inconsistency, 
and  so  entirely  irreconcileable  with  common  sense.  The 
whole  system  is  like  the  fairy  fiction  of  some  visionary  labour- 
ing with  nonsense,  some  speculator  straining  to  invent  an 
absurdity,  or  some  satirist  resolved  to  ridicule  the  faith  of  its 
partizans. 

Transubstantiation  varies  from  our  ideas  of  matter  and  the 
evidences  of  the  senses,  while  it  presents  the  absurdity  of  creat- 
ing the  Creator,  and  the  horror  of  cannibalism  in  eating  an 
incarnated  God.  This  dogma  contradicts  all  our  ideas  of  mate- 
rial substances.  Matter,  it  represents  as  divested  of  dimension, 
figure,  parts,  impenetrability,  motion,  divisibility,  extension, 
locality,  or  quantity.  Length,  breadth,  and  thickness,  accord- 
ing to  this  theology,  exist  without  any  thing  long,  broad,  or 
thick.  Matter  exists  without  occupying  space  or  time.  Sub- 
stance remains  without  accidents,  and  accidents  without  sub- 
stance. The  same  body  is  in  many  places  at  the  same  time. 
Jesus,  at  the  same  instant,  is  entire  in  heaven,  on  earth,  and  on 
thousands  of  altars  ;  while  millions  of  bodies  are  but  one  body. 
A  whole  is  equal  to  a  part,  and  a  part  equal  to  a  whole.  A 
whole  human  body  is  compressed  into  an  host,  and  remains 
entire  and  undivided  in  each  of  ten  thousands  hosts.  The  person 
who  can  digest  all  these  contradictions,  must  have  an  extraor- 
dinary capacity  of  faith  or  credulity. 

This  popish  dogma  also  contradicts  the  information  conveyed 
by  our  senses.  Sight,  touch,  taste,  and  smell  declare  flesh  and 
blood,  if  this  tenet  be  true,  to  be  bread  and  wine.  No  man  can 
see,  feel,  taste,  or  smell  any  difference  between  a  consecrated 
and  unconsecrated  wafer.  The  senses,  not  merely  of  one,  but 
of  all  men,  even  when  neither  the  organ  or  medium  is  indisposed, 
are,  according  to  this  theory  deceived  without  any  possibility 
of  detecting  the  fallacy.  The  senses  too,  in  this  case,  are 
acting  in  their  own  sphere  and  conversant  about  their  peculiai 
objects.  Many  subjects,  such  as  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarna- 


*    * 


ABSURDITY    OF     TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  419 

lion,  are  beyond  the  grasp  of  our  bodily  senses  and  indeed  of 
human  reason.  These  are  to  be  judged  by  the  testimony  of 
Revelation.  But  bread  and  wine  are  material,  and  level  with 
the  view  of  our  organs  of  perception.  The  sacramental 
elements  can  be  seen,  smelled,  touched,  and  tasted.  Our 
external  organs,  say  the  friends  of  transubstantiation,  are,  in 
this  institution,  deceived  in  all  men,  at  all  times,  and  on  all 
occasions. 

The  patrons  of  this  absurdity,  driven  from  all  other  positions, 
have  recourse  to  the  omnipotence  of  God.  Almighty  power  is 
a  very  convenient  resource  to  the  abettor  of  inconsistency  in  the 
day  of  difficulty  and  confusion.  This  shield,  the  advocate  of 
absurdity  opposes  to  all  the  assaults  of  reason  and  common  sense. 
Intrenched  behind  Omnipotence,  he  mocks  the  suggestions  of 
probability,  and  laughs  at  the  artillery  of  the  logician.  But 
even  this  plea  will  not  support  irrationality,  or  rescue  its  parti- 
zans  from  the  grasp  of  the  dialectician.  Scriptural  language  is 
not  to  be  explained  so  as  to  involve  a  frightful  absurdity.  The 
patron  of  the  corporeal  presence,  for  the  support  of  his  fabrica- 
tion, modestly  requires  God  to  work  an  inconsistency.  But  in- 
comprehensibility is  to  be  distinguished  from  impossibility,  and 
mystery  from  contradiction.  God  works  many  things  incom- 
prehensible to  man ;  but  nothing  which,  in  itself,  is  con- 
tradictory. Omnipotence  extends  only  to  possibility,  and 
not  to  inconsistency,  to  things  above,  but  not  contrary  to 
reason. 

The  creation  of  the  Creator,  which,  according  to  Urban, 
Biel,  and  many  others,  is  implied  in  this  dogma,  is  another 
deviation  from  common  sense,  and  an  inroad  into  the  dominions 
of  blasphemy.  '  The  hands  of  the  Pontiff,'  said  Urban  in  a 
great  Roman  Council,  '  areN  raised  to  an  eminence  granted  to 
none  of  the  angels,  of  creating  God  the  Creator  of  all  things, 
and  of  offering  him  up  for  the  salvation  of  the  whole  world.1 
This  prerogative,  adds  the  same  authority,  as  it  elevates  the 
pope  above  angels,  renders  pontifical  submission  to  kings  an 
execration.  To  all  this  the  Sacred  Synod,  with  the  utmost 
unanimity,  responded,  Amen.1 

Biel  extends  this  power  to  all  priests.  '  He  that  created  me,* 
says  the  cardinal,  '  gave  me,  if  it  be  lawful  to  tell,  to  create 
himself.'  His  holiness  not  only  manufactures  his  own  God, 
but  transfers,  with  the  utmost  freedom  and  facility,  the  same 

1  Dicens,  nimis  execrabile  videri,  ut  manus,  quae  in  tantam  eminentiam  excreve- 
runt,  quod  nulli  an^elorum  concession  est,  ut  Deum  cuncta  creautem  suo  signaoulo 
creent,  et  eundem  ipsum  pro  saluti  totius  mundi,  Dei  Patris  obtutibus  ofierant. 
Et  ab  omnibus  acclamatum  est  '  Fiat,  fiat.'  Hoveden,  ad  Ann.  1099.  P.  268. 
Labb.  12.  9GO.  Bruy,  2.  635. 

27* 


420  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

prerogative  to  the  whole  priesthood.  This  power,  Biel,  shews, 
exalts  the  clergy,  not  only  above  emperors  and  angels  ;  but, 
which  is  a  higher  elevation,  above  Lady  Mary  herself.  '  Her 
ladyship,'  says  the  cardinal,  '  once  conceived  the  Son  of  God 
and  the  Redeemer  of  the  world  ;  while  the  priest  daily  calls 
into  existence  the  same  Deity.'1  This  is  very  clear.  Her 
ladyship  effected  only  once,  what  the  clergy  repeat  every  day 
or  as  often  as  they  please  :  and  these  creators  of  God,  therefore, 
excel  the  Mother  of  God.  These  sacerdotal  artizans  have 
established  a  manufactory  on  earth,  in  which  they  can,  by  the 
easiest  process  and  in  the  shortest  time,  forge  new  gods,  or,  at 
least,  new  editions  of  the  old  one.  Lady  Mary,  in  this  manner, 
is  the  Mother  of  God,  and  the  creating  priest,  in  Urban' s 
system,  is  his  father. 

The  Deity,  created  in  this  manner,  is  a  very  convenient  ar- 
ticle. He  may  be  deposited  on  the  altar,  put  into  the  pocket, 
carried  in  a  box,  swallowed  down  the  throat,  or  used  for  more 
detestable  purposes.  Pope  Theodorus,  in  648,  anathematized 
Pyrrhus  the  Monothelan  Patriarch,  and  subscribed  his  condem- 
nation with  the  consecrated  wine,  which,  of  course,  was  his  in- 
fallibility's God.  This  transaction  was  accompanied  with  all 
that  is  calculated  to  strike  the  mind  of  superstition  with  terror, 
The  pontiff,  standing  at  the  tomb  of  the  chief  of  the  apostles, 
called  for  the  vivifying  cup,  and  taking  a  drop  from  the  living 
blood  of  Jesus,  signed,  with  his  own  hand,  the  excommunication 
of  Pyrrhus  and  all  his  communion.  Gregory  the  Seventh,  on 
one  occasion,  committed  the  Host  to  the  flames.  The  Council 
of  Constantinople,  in  869,  signed  the  condemnation  of  Photius 
with  a  pen  dipped  in  this  transubstantiated  God.  The  Emperor 
Michael  and  Basil  his  chamberlain  subscribed  an  oath  for  (he 
safety  of  Bardas  on  a  Cretan  expedition  with  the  consecrated 
wine,  which  was  supplied,  on  the  occasion,  by  Photius  the 
Byzantine  patriarch  ;  and  this  engagement,  Basil  afterwards 
violated.2 

The  popish  clergy,  as  they  make,  so  they  eat  their  God,  and 
transfer  him  to  be  devoured  by  others.  The  papist  adores  the 
God  whom  he  eats,  and  eats  the  God  whom  he  adores.  This 
divinity  is  tasted,  masticated,  swallowed,  and,  accidents  ex- 
cepted,  digested.  The  partizan  of  popery,  in  this  manner, 

1  Qui  creavit  me,  si  fas  est  dicere,  dedit  mihi  creare  se.  Semel  concepit  Dei 
filinra,  eundem  Dei  filium  advocant  qnotidie  corporaliter.  Biel,  Lect.  4. 

2Atr»?<jaf  TO  Ofiov  jtOTfrjpiov  fx  /ov  ^worto/ou  aijuaf oj  rov  Xuatov  sjtiffTaaag  trf 
i&a  £«pt,  xaOcupfaiv  Huppou.  Theoph.  219,  370. 

Qui  jetta  lasainte  Hostie  dans  le  feu.     Bruy,  2.  472.     Mabillon,  1.  407. 

Tous  les  evcques  souscriberent  a  ce  decret,  avec  le  sang  de  Jesus.  Moren,  7 
201. 


CANNIBALISM    OF     TRANSUBSTANTIATION.  42  i 

worships  and  swallows  a  God  of  pastry,  which,  if  made  big 
enough,  would  furnish  a  breakfast  for  himself  or  for  his  dog. 

The  manducatiori  of  the  sacramental  elements,  if  transub- 
stantiation  be  true,  makes  the  communicant  the  rankest  cannibal. 
The  patron  of  the  corporeal  presence,  according  to  his  own 
system,  devours  human  flesh  and  blood  :  and,  to  show  the 
refinement  of  his  taste,  indulges  in  all  the  luxury  of  cannibalism. 
He  rivals  the  polite  Indian,  who  eats  the  quivering  limbs  and 
drinks  the  flowing  gore  of  the  enemy.  The  papist  even 
exceeds  the  Indian  in  grossness.  The  cannibals  of  America 
or  New  Zealand  swallow  only  the  mangled  remains  of  an 
enemy,  and  would  shudder  at  the  idea  of  devouring  any  other 
human  flesh.  But  the  partizans  of  Romanism  glut  themselves 
with  the  flesh  and  blood  of  a  friend.  The  Indian  only  eats  the 
dead,  while  the  Papist,  with  more  shocking  ferocity,  devours 
the  living.  The  Indian  eats  man  of  mortal  mould  on  earth. 
The  Papist  devours  God-man,  as  he  exists  exalted,  immortal, 
and  glorious  in  heaven.  Papal  exceeds  even  Egyptian  stupidi- 
ty. The  Egyptians  indeed  worshipped  sheep,  oxen,  garlic, 
and  onions.  But  even  these  deluded  votaries  of  idolatry  and 
superstition,  in  all  their  barbarism  and  indelicacy,  abstained 
from  eating  the  objects  of  their  adoration.  But  the  believer  in 
the  corporeal  presence  at  once  worships  and  swallows,  adores 
and  devours  his  Deity.  This  oral  manducadon  would,  shock- 
ing to  say,  make  Jesus  more  inhuman  than  Saturn.  Saturn, 
according  to  Pagan  Mythology,  devoured  his  own  offspring. 
Jesus,  according  to  the  Popish  theology,  swallowed  his  own 
flesh.  He  ate  the  consecrated  bread  and  drank  the  hallowed 
wine,  which  he  administered  to  his  apostles.  Such  are  the 
horrors  which  follow  in  the  train  of  this  absurdity. 

This  is  the  light  in  which  the  corporeal  presence  has  been 
vie  wed,  not  only  by  Protestants,  but  also  by  Jews,  Mahometans, 
and  Heathens.  '  Christians,'  said  Crotus  the  Jew,  'eat  their 
God.'  I  have  travelled  over  the  world,  said  Averroes  the 
Arabian  philosopher,  and  seen  many  people ;  but  none  so 
sottish  and  ridiculous  as  Christians,  who  devour  the  God  whom 
they  worship.1  Cicero  entertained  a  similar  opinion.  Whom, 
said  the  Roman  orator,  do  you  think  so  demented  as  to  believe 
what  he  eats  to  be  God  ! 2  Roman  philosophy  shames  and 
confounds  Romish  theology. 

Aimon,  Lanfranc,  Hugo,  Durand,  Aquinas,  Bernard,  Alcuin, 
Pithoti,  Faber,  Lyra,  and  the  Trentine  Catechism  have  indeed 

1  Christian!  comedunt  Deum  suum.     Dachery,  3.  60. 

Qui  adorent  ce  qu'ils  mangent.  Bayle,  1.  385.  Perron,  III.  29.  Morery,  1 
754.  Aquin.  3.  397. 

8  Ecquem  tarn  amentem  esse  putas,  qui  illud  quo  vescatur,  Deum  credat  esse. 
Cicero,  De  Natura.  Deor.  III. 


422  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

endeavoured  to  gild  the  Cannibalism  of  Popery.1  These 
admit  the  horror  of  feeding  on  human  flesh  and  blood  in  their 
own  forms.  But  the  sacramental  elements,  say  they,  appear 
under  the  species  of  bread  and  wine  that  conceal  the  human 
substance,  which,  in  consequence,  becomes,  these  theologians 
seem  to  think,  a  great  delicacy. 

The  statements  of  these  authors  present  a  curious  attempt  to 
disguise  the  grossness  and  inhumanity  of  eating  human  flesh. 
Aimon,  in  Dachery,  represents  '  the  taste  and  figure  of  bread 
and  wine  as  remaining  in  the  sacrament,  to  prevent  the  horror 
of  the  communicant.'  Similar  statements  are  found  in  Lan- 
franc.  According  to  this  author,  '  The  species  remain,  lest 
the  spectator  should  be  horrified  at  the  sight  of  raw  and  bloody 
flesh.  The  nature  of  Jesus  is  concealed  and  received  for 
salvation,  without  the  horror  which  might  be  excited  by  blood ' 
Hugo  acknowledges  that  4  few  would  approach  the  communion, 
if  blood  should  appear  in  the  cup,  and  the  flesh  should  appear 
red  as  in  the  shambles.  Hunger  itself,  which  would  be  dis- 
gusted at  such  bloody  food.'  Durand  admits,  that  '  human 
infirmity,  unaccustomed  to  eat  man's  flesh,  would,  if  the  sub- 
stance were  seen,  refuse  participation.'  Aquinas  avows  *  the 
horror  of  swallowing  human  flesh  and  blood.'  The  smell,  the 
species,  and  the  taste  of  bread  and  wine  remain,'  says  the 
sainted  Bernard,  'to  conceal  flesh  and  blood,  which,  if  offered 
without  disguise  as  meat  and  drink,  might  horrify  human 
weakness.'  According  to  Alcuin  in  Pithou,  '  Almighty  God 
causes  the  prior  form  to  continue  in  condescension  to  the  frailty 
of  man,  who  is  unused  to  swallow  raw  flesh  and  blood.'  The 

1  Propter  sumentium  horrorem,  sapor  panis  et  vini  remanet  et  figura.  Aimon, 
in  Dach.  1.  42. 

Reservatis  ipsaram  rerura  speciebus,  et  quibusdam  aliis  qualitatibus,  ne  percipi- 
entes  cruda  et  cruenta  horrerent.  Lanfrauc,  244. 

Christi  natura  contegitur,  et  sine  cruoris  horrore  a  digne  sumentibus  in  salutem 
accepitur.  Lanfranc,  248. 

Si  cruor  in  calice  fieret  manifestos  et  si  in  macello  Christi  ruberetsuacaro,  rarus 
in  terris  ille  qui  hoc  non  abhorreret.  Hugo,  de  corp.  70. 

Fragilitas  humana,  quae  suis  carnibus  non  consuevit  vesci,  ipso  visa  nihil  hauriat, 
quod  horreat.  Durand,  in  Lanfranc,  100. 

Non  est  consuetum  hominibus,  horribilem  camera  hominis  comedere  et  sangui- 
nem  bibere.  Aquin.  III.  75.  V.  P.  357. 

Odor,  species  sapor,  pond  us  remanent,  ut  horror  penitus  tollatur,  ne  hamana  in- 
firmitas  escura  carnis  et  potum  sanguinis  in  sumptione  horreret.  Bernard,  1682. 

Consulens  omnipotens  Deus  infirmitati  nostrae,  qui  non  habemus  usum  come- 
dere camera  crudam  et  sanguinem  bibere,  fecit  ut  in  pristina  remanens  forma  ilia 
duo  munera.  Alcuin  in  Pithou,  467. 

Similitudiuem  preciosi  sanguinis  bibis,  ut  nullius  horror  cruoris,  Pithou,  460. 
Neque  decuisset  manducare  camera  Christi  sub  propria  forma.  Faber,  1.  127. 

Si  daretur  in  propria  specie  et  sicut  laniatur  vel  venditur  in  macello,  quod  esset 
horribile.  Lyra  in  Cossart,  4.  457. 

A  comrauui  hominura  natura  maxime  abhorreat  humanae  carnis  esca,  aut  san- 
guinis potione  vesci,  sapientissime  fecit,  ut  sanctissirnum  corpus  et  sanguis  sub 
earum  rerum  specie  panis  et  vini  nobis  administraretur.  Cat.  Trid.  129. 


CANNIBALISM    OF    TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 

partaker,  says  Pithou  in  the  Canon  Law,  drinks  the  likeness 
of  blood,  and  therefore  no  horror  is  excited,  nor  any  thing  done 
which  might  be  ridiculed  by  pagans.'  The  statements  of  Faber 
and  Lyra  are  to  the  same  effect.  According  to  the  Trentine 
Catechism, '  the  Lord's  body  and  blood  are  administered  under 
the  species  of  bread  and  wine,  on  account  of  man's  horror  of 
eating  and  drinking  human  flesh  and  blood.'  These  descrip- 
lions  are  shocking,  and  calculated,  in  some  measure,  to  awaken 
the  horror  which  they  pourtray. 

The  accidents,  it  appears,  which  remain  after  consecration, 
are  like  sugar,  which  conceals  bitter  medicine  from  a  child  and 
renders  it  pleasing  and  palatable.  This  is  actually  the  simile  of 
Hugo.  He  compares  the  forms  of  the  bread  and  wine  to  the 
ingredients  with  which  a  physician  would  sweeteh  a  bitter 
draught  for  a  squeamish  patient.1  Human  flesh  and  blood, 
clothed  in  this  manner  with  the  external  appearance  of  bread 
and  wine,  may,  according  to  popish  divinity,  be  swallowed 
without  any  disgust  or  nausea ;  and  with  pleasure  and  good 
taste.  The  apology,  however,  is  a  very  silly  device.  The  same 
reason  might  excuse  the  Cannibals  of  New  Zealand.  The 
American  savage  might  mix  human  gore  with  other  food,  and 
cover  human  flesh  with  something  less  offensive  to  the  senses,  so 
as  to  disguise  the  outward  appearance,  and  then  glut  his  appetite 
with  a  full  meal.  He  would  then  enjoy  the  substance  clothed 
\vith  another  exterior.  All  this,  however,  would  not  exempt 
the  barbarian  from  the  brutality  of  anthropophagy.  The  Rom- 
anist, on  the  supposition  of  the  corporeal  presence,  swallows 
human  flesh  and  blood  as  well  as  the  Indian. 

Algerus  has  suggested  another  reason  for  the  manner,  in 
which  the  Lord's  body  is  administered  in  the  sacrament.2  This 
arises  from  a  man's  incapability  of  swallowing  a  human  body 
in  its  natural  dimensions.  The  capacity  of  the  mouth,  the 
learned  divine  seems  to  think,  would  not  admit  so  large  a 
supply,  which  therefore  could  not  be  submitted  to  the  action  of 
the  teeth.  The  quantity  would  be  too  great  for  the  expansion 
of  the  jaws  or  the  process  of  mastication.  A  whole  human 
crasis  would,  according  to  this  author,  exceed  the  powers  of 
deglutition.  The  throat,  being  too  contracted  for  its  object, 
might  fail  at  the  swallow.  But  the  substance  being  reduced 
to  the  size  of  a  wafer  is  managed  with  the  utmost  facility. 
The  whole,  when  enclosed  in  the  host,  goes  down  the  gullet 
with  convenience,  ease,  and  rapidity. 

Transubstantiation  exposes  the  popish  deity  to  be  devoured, 

1  Sicut  medicus  fastidienti  aegro   austeram  potionem  per   alienas   dulcedinea 
temperando  saporat.     Hugo  in  Lanfranc,  70. 
8  Du  Pin,  2.  204. 


424  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

not  only  by  man,  but  also  by  the  irrational  animals.  This 
divinity  may  yield  a  rich  repast  to  mice,  rats,  vermin,  worms, 
and  every  reptile  that  crawls  on  the  earth.  The  smallest  mouse, 
says  Bernard,  sometimes  gnaws  the  species  of  the  bread.  An 
event  of  this  kind  proselyted  Gage,  author  of  the  Survey,  from 
Romanism.  A  sacrilegious  mouse  sallied  forth,  seized,  and,  in 
triumph,  carried  off  the  wafer  God  whom  the  priest  had  made. 
The  priest  alarmed  the  people,  who,  distracted  like  Micah  of 
old  about  his  Gods,  began  to  search  for  the  thief  that  had  stolen 
their  Almighty.  The  malefactor,  that  committed  the  depreda- 
tion, escaped.  The  God,  however,  was  found,  but  mutilated 
and  mouse-eaten.  The  half-devoured  Jehovah  was  carried  in 
procession  about  the  church  amidst  joyful  and  solemn  music.1 
The  transaction  was  the  means  of  showing  Gage,  though  a 
priest,  the  absurdity  of  his  opinion,  and  teaching  him  a  more 
rational  system. 

•  Bernard,  1683.    Gage,  197.    Judges,  xyiii.  24. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


COMMUNION    IN    ONE    KIND. 

ITS  CONTRARIETT  TO  SCRIPTURAL  INSTITUTION — CONCESSIONS — ARGUMENTS — IT 
CONTRARIETY  TO  THE  USAGE  OP  THE  EARLY  AND  MIDDLE  AGES  —  CONCESSIONS- 
ITS  CONTRARIETY  TO  THE  CUSTOM  OF  THE  ORIENTAL  CHRISTIANS ORIGIN  Ol 

HALF- COMMUNION COUNCILS    OF    CONSTANCE    AND    BASIL INCONSISTENCY    OF    THE 

CONSTANTIAN    AND    BASILIAN    CANONS INCONSISTENCY    OF     THE     BASILIAN     ASSEM- 
BLY   WITH    ITS    OWN    ENACTMENTS     IN     GRANTING     THE     CUP     TO     THE     MORAVIANS 

AND    BOHEMIANS COUNCIL    OF    TRENT OPPOSITION    TO    THE    TRENTINE   CANONS    IN 

FRANCE,    GERMANY,    BOHEMIA,    POLAND,    AND    HUNGARY. 

COMMUNION  in  one  kind,  the  child  of  transubstantiation,  con- 
sists in  the  administration  of  the  sacramental  bread  only, 
without  the  cup,  to  the  laity  and  non-officiating  clergy.  Both 
elements,  indeed,  are  always  consecrated  and  received  by  the 
administrator.  The  sacrificial  character  of  the  institution, 
according  to  papal  theology,  requires  the  distinct  consecration 
of  the  bread  and  the  wine,  in  order  to  represent  the  separation 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  immolated  victim.  The  officia- 
ting priest  participates  in  both  species ;  but  the  people  only  in 
one.  The  cup,  for  the  prevention  of  scandal  and  accidents,  is 
withheld  from  the  laity.1 

Communion  in  one  kind  is  contrary  to  Scriptural  institution. 
The  Divine  Institutor  administered  both  the  bread  and  the 
wine  to  all  who  communicated :  and  commanded  them  to  drink 
as  well  as  to  eat.  He  neither  dispensed  the  sacrament,  nor 
authorized  its  dispensation,  under  one  form.2 

This,  indeed,  has  been  granted,  in  general,  by  popish  doctors 
and  councils.  Such  is  the  admission  of  Pascal,  Ragusa, 
Bellarmine,  Erasmus,  Gibert,  and  Cajetan.  These  acknowl- 
edge that  « our  Lord  instituted  the  sacrament  under  both 
species ;'  and  they  have  been  followed,  in  more  modern  times, 
by  Bossuet,  Gother,  Petavius,  Challenor,  Du  Pin,  and  Milner. 
The  council  of  Constance  makes  a  similar  concession.  Tho 
Lord,  according  to  this  assembly,  *  instituted  th«  sacrament, 

1  Labb.  16.  218.  et  17.  317.  et  20.  122.     Paolo,  VI.  Bass.  $.  17.     Gother,  «    21 
Challenor,  52. 

3  Matth.  xxvi.  27.     Mark,  xiv.  23.     1  Corin.  xi.  28. 


426  THE    VARIATIONS    OF   POPERY: 

and  administered  it  to  his  disciples  in  both  elements  of  bread 
and  wine.1  The  admission  of  the  Trentine  Synod,  which 
acknowledges  *  our  Lord's  administration  of  each  species  in 
the  original  institution,'  is  to  the  same  purpose.1 

But  these  theologians  and  synods,  notwithstanding  their 
concessions,  have  urged  the  propriety  of  half-communion.  Their 
attempts  at  proof,  however,  in  which  they  endeavour  to  throw 
obscurity  over  a  plain  subject,  and  to  puzzle,  when  they  cannot 
reason,  are  of  the  most  awkward  and  contemptible  kind.  This 
question  was  discussed  in  a  general  congregation  at  Trent ;  and 
the  arguments  used  on  the  occasion  supply  a  specimen  of  the 
most  egregious  sophistry,  trifling,  and  dissension  that  ever  dis- 
graced the  annals  of  theology. 

The  manna  in  the  wilderness,  said  these  precious  divines, 
which,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  prefigured  the  sacramental 
bread,  was  used  without  wine.  The  Hebrew,  wandering  in 
the  desert,  was  destitute  of  wine,  and  had  to  be  contented  with 
water  from  the  rock  :  and,  therefore,  according  to  Trentine 
logic,  the  sacramental  bread,  under  the  Christian  establishment, 
is,  notwithstanding  Christ's  precept  and  example  to  the  contrary, 
to  be  administered  without  the  accompaniment  of  the  cup.  One 
cannot  sufficiently  admire  the  clearness  and  cogency  of  the 
Trentine  dialectics. 

The  Jewish  laity,  according  to  the  same  theologians,  were 
permitted  to  eat  the  flesh  of  the  sacrificed  animals  ;  but  not,  on 
the  occasion,  to  drink  the  offered  wine.  The  priesthood,  on  the 
contrary,  were  allowed  both  the  meat  and  drink.  The  Chris- 
tian clergy,  therefore,  according  to  the  infallible  fathers,  may 
use  both  the  sacramental  elements  ;  whilst  the  laity,  notwith- 
standing our  Lord's  command,  are  entitled  only  to  one. 

The  Old  Testament  afforded  the  sacred  synod  a  third  proof 
and  illustration.  Jonathan,  when  in  pursuit  of  the  enemy, 
tasted  honey  from  the  top  of  his  staff;  but  had  nothing,  on  the 
occasion,  to  drink.  The  honey  which  the  Hebrew  prince  found 
in  the  wood,  was  unaccompanied  with  wine  :  and,  therefore, 
the  bread  in  the  communion  is,  with  respect  to  the  laity  and 
even  the  non-administering  clergy,  to  be  disconnected  with  the 
cup.2 

These  and  a  few  other  instances  that  might  be  added,  afford 

1  Per  se  panem,  per  se  vinum,  ab  ipso  Domino  traditum.  Pascal,  Ep.  32.  Labb. 
12.  999.  Christus  in  coena  sub  duplici  specie  tradidit.  Ragusa  in  Labb.  17.  8G5. 
Christus  instituit  sub  duplici  specie.  Bell.  IV.  4.  Prater  auctoritatem  Scripturae 
Divina3  dimidium  ejus  sacramenti  subtraherent  laicis.  Erasm.  Con.  Mon  1066. 
Gibert,  3.  331.  Cajetan  in  Aquin.  3.  393. 

Christus  instituit  et  suis  discipulis  administravit  sub  utraqne  spec?  \  panis  et 
vini,  hoc  venerabile  sacramentum.  Labb.  16.  218.  Dominus  hoc  s?  tamentum 
ha  panis  et  vini  speciebus  instituit.  Labb.  20.  122. 

»  Paolo,  2.  205.     Estius,  1.  330. 


POPISH    ARGUMENTS    FOR    COMMUNION    IN    ONE    KIND.     427 

a  specimen  of  the  understanding  and  intelligence  manifested  by 
the  Trentine  doctors.  The  bishops,  who  seem  to  have  possessed 
rather  more  common  sense  than  the  divines,  became  weary  of 
the  discussion.  The  episcopal  patience  was  fairly  exhausted 
by  the  tedious  balderdash  and  prolix  verbosity  of  the  theological 
orators.  Courayer,  on  Paolo,  admits  the  vexatious  and  provok- 
ing weakness  of  the  arguments  used  at  Trent  by  the  learned 
doctors. 

The  statements  of  the  Trentine  divines  were  as  discordant 
as  they  were  nonsensical.  Each  had  his  own  opinion,  which, 
however  foolish  or  unfounded,  he  held  with  the  utmost  pertin- 
acity. The  spirit  of  faction  also  actuated  the  learned  doctors. 
One  party,  consisting  of  sixty-three  divines,  attacked  the  different 
opinions  of  the  rest  without  discrimination  or  mercy.  The 
theological  gladiators,  in  this  manner,  displayed  the  unity  of 
Romanism  in  the  holy  council  by  unwearied  altercation,  diversity, 
and  debate. 

Gerson,  followed  by  Bossuet,  resolves  the  contrariety  in  the 
Scriptural  and  Popish  manner  of  administration  by  summoning 
ecclesiastical  exposition  to  their  aid.  Divine  Revelation,  which 
is  the  rule  of  faith,  admits,  according  to  this  author,  '  some 
interpretation.'  Bossuet  and  a  thousand  other  Romish  doctors 
sing  to  the  same  tune,  and  subject  the  Lord's  expression  to  the 
arbitrary  explanation  of  the  church  or  popish  hierarchy.1 

This  kind  of  theological  alchemy  is  an  easy  mode  of  trans- 
forming Revelation  and  removing  a  difficulty.  Gerson  and 
Bossuet  had  only  to  assume,  as  right,  the  gloss  of  the  popish 
hierarchy,  which  these  doctors  dignify  with  the  name  of  the 
church.  But  assumption  is  no  proof.  The  principle,  asserted 
by  Gerson  and  Bossuet,  would  if  admitted,  substitute  the  com- 
mandments of  men  for  tjie  Revelation  of  heaven,  and  like  the 
traditions  of  the  Jewish  Rabbins,  '  make  the  word  of  God  of 
none  effect.'  The  gloss,  in  this  case,  would  make  the  inspired 
language  mean  the  direct  contrary  of  what  it  says.  The  Scrip- 
tural expression  enjoins  the  use  of  the  cup  on  all,  clergy  and 
laity  ;  while  the  popish  interpretation  would  restrict  it  to  the 
priesthood,  to  the  utter  exclusion  of  the  people. 

The  council  of  Trent,  differing  from  Gerson  and  Bossuet, 
arrogated,  for  the  church,  the  power,  not  only  of  convenient  and 
accommodating  explanation,  but  also,  retaining  the  substance, 
of  changing  and  ordaining  the  mode  of  administration,  accord- 
ing to  the  variety  of  circumstances,  times,  and  places.  This 
extraordinary  position,  the  unerring  doctors  attempted  to  evince 
by  a  quotation  from  the  book  of  inspiration.  The  aposl  e  calls 

1  Gerson  in  Du  Pin,  3.  49.     Bossuet,  Expo.  §.17. 


428  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

the  administrators  of  this  institution,  "  the  ministers  of  Christ 
and  the  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God."  The  sacred  synod 
must  have  been  at  a  woful  loss  for  an  argument,  when  they 
adduced  this  citation,  which,  instead  of  supporting,  overthrows 
their  whole  system.  A  minister  or  steward  possesses  no 
authority  to  violate  the  instructions  of  his  master.  His  duty, 
on  the  contrary,  is  to  execute  the  commands  of  his  Lord,  who 
has  a  right  to  exact  obedience.  Pope  Pascal,  accordingly,  in 
reference  to  this  sacrament,  declared  that  '  it  is  necessary  for 
the  faithful  servant  always  to  obey  his  Lord,  nor  to  depart,  by 
a  human  and  novel  institution,  from  the  precept  and  example 
of  Christ  his  master  :'  and  the  hierarch,  in  consequence,  en- 
joined entire  communion  on  the  whole  church.  Similar  laws 
were  enacted  by  Leo,  Gelasius,  and  Urban.1  The  salutary 
directions  of  these  pontiffs,  had  they  been  followed,  would  have 
prevented  a  world  of  superstition. 

Challenor,  Arsdekin,  and  many  other  doctors  endeavour  to 
remove  the  difficulty  by  another  process.  All  to  whom  the  cup, 
at  the  time  of  institution,  was  presented,  were  not  laymen,  but 
priests  :  and  the  use  of  the  wine  by  the  clergy  affords  no  ex- 
ample for  its  distribution  to  the  laity.2  But  this  argument,  if  it 
prove  any  thing,  proves  too  much,  and  evinces  that  neither 
elements  is  to  be  dispensed  to  the  people.  The  bread  as  well  as 
the  wine,  at  the  first  celebration  of  this  institution,  was  given 
only  to  the  apostles  ;  and  Challenor,  therefore,  might  as  well 
infer  that  the  former  as  that  the  latter  are  to  be  withheld  from 
the  laity. 

The  apostles,  on  this  occasion,  even  on  popish  principles, 
represented  the  people.  Their  office,  when  they  did  not  act  in 
a  sacerdotal  capacity,  could  give  them  no  title  to  whole  com- 
munion. The  lay  communicants  and  the  non-officiating  clergy, 
in  this  respect  are,  according  to  the  general  councils  of  Con- 
stance, Basil,  and  Trent,  precisely  on  an  equality.  These 
councils  allow  the  cup  only  to  the  consecrating  priest,  and  with- 
hold it  from  the  clergy,  when  they  do  not  administer,  as  well  as 
from  the  people.  Challenor  himself  declares  that  '  no  priest, 
bishop  or  pope,  even  on  his  death-bed,  when  not  saying  mass, 
receives  otherwise  than  in  one  kind.'  Another  catechist  states 
that  '  there  is  no  priest,  though  in  the  most  exalted  degree,  but 
in  private  communion,  receives  as  others  do,  in  one  kind.' 
But  the  a.postles,  at  the  appointment  of  the  sacrament,  per- 
formed no  official  part  in  the  ceremony.  The.  Son  of  God,  in 


1  Necesse  est  Domino  servns  fidelis  obtemperet,  ner  ab  fe  <j»v*l  Chnstns  magi*- 
ter  et  prnecepit  et  gessit  humana  et  novella  institutions,  diceditir.  L»bb.  12.  1^9, 
Du  Pin,  2.  286.  Mabillon,  6.  13.  Bin.  7.  507. 

3  Challenor,  52.     Arsdekin,  c.  5. 


POPISH  ARGUMENTS  FOR  COMMUNION  IN  ONE  KIND.        429 

person,  blessed  and  distributed  the  elements.  He  alone,  there- 
fore, according  to  the  popish  usage,  was  entitled  to  both  kinds  ; 
while  the  rest,  as  they  did  not  consecrate,  could,  notwithstand- 
ing their  office,  partake  only  of  one  element.  The  Divine 
Institutor,  therefore,  showed  little  respect  for  the  future  councils 
of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent ;  or  rather,  these  councils,  in 
their  retrospective  canons,  manifested  little  deference  for  the 
Divine  Institutor.  Our  Lord,  contrary  to  these  sacred  synods, 
commanded  and  exemplified  whole  communion,  with  respect 
to  all  who  partook  of  the  sacrament.1 

The  patrons  of  half-communion  argue  from  the  name,  which, 
they  suppose,  is  sometimes  given  to  this  institution  in  the  New 
Testament.  This  ordinance,  it  has  been  alleged,  Luke  in  his 
gospels  and  in  the  Acts,  calls  "  the  breaking  of  bread,"  without 
any  mention  of  the  cup.  But  this  language,  if  it  refer  to  the 
sacrament,  must  be  synecdochal.  A  part  must  be  put  for  the 
whole.  The  wine  as  well  as  the  other  element,  must,  even  on 
popish  principles,  have  been  consecrated  and  received,  at  least 
by  the  administrator.  Consecration  and  reception  in  both 
kinds  is  indispensable,  as  has  been  shown  by  Boileau,  Bellar- 
mine,  Bossuet,  Challenor,  and  Milner.  Valentia  characterized 
consecration  in  one  kind  as  sacrilege  ;  and  the  Jesuit's  sentence, 
Mondolfo,  an  Augustinian,  averred  at  the  council  of  Trent,  to 
be  consentaneous  with  all  the  doctors  and  the  whole  church. 
The  person,  therefore,  who  invented  this  sophism,  as  well  as 
those  who  have  adopted  it,  must  have  been  at  a  miserable  loss 
for  an  argument.  Their  situation  must  have  been  like  a 
drowning  man,  who,  in  the  moment  of  desperation  and  ex- 
tremity, will  catch  at  a  straw  or  a  shadow. 

Milner  and  many  other  advocates  of  half-communion,  argue 
from  Paul's  words  to  the  \Corinthians,  "whosoever  shall  eat 
this  bread  and  drink  this  cup."  This  phrase,  Milner  would 
render,  "  whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread  OR  drink  this  cup ;" 
and  he  accuses  protestarits  of  mistranslation.  The  distributive 
or,  indeed,  is  the  usual  version  of  the  original  term.  But  the 
Alexandrian  and  Royal  manuscripts,  as  well  as  the  Syriac, 
Arabic,  and  ^Ethiopic  versions,  and  some  ancient  editions  of 
the  Latin  Vulgate,  agree,  according  to  Bengelius,  Wetstein, 
and  Whitby,  with  our  translation.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Clemens,  Cyril,  and  Athanasius.  The  disjunctive,  besides,  is 
often,  in  Greek,  equivalent  to  the  copulative.  Mark's  expres- 
sion, "  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority,"  is,  in  Luke,  according 

1  Lnbb.  17.  370.  et  20.  122.     Challenor,  55. 

2  Luke  xxiv.  30.     Acts  ii.  42.  et  xx.  7.     Si  enim  una  species  absque  altera  coa, 
Bciatnr,  sacrilegiuin  committur.     Boileau,  c.  13.     Du  Pin,  3.  550.     Bellarmin,   iv, 
4.     Challenor,  52.     Milner,  316. 


430  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

to  the  original,  "or  who  gave  thee  this  authority."  Mattnew's 
diction,  "  the  law  or  the  prophets,"  is,  in  Luke,  agreeable  to 
the  Greek,  "  the  law  and  the  prophets."  Paul,  addressing  the 
Romans,  says,  "to  Abraham  or  his  seed  ;"  but  to  the  Galatians, 
the  Apostle  says,  "  to  Abraham  and  his  seed."  Many  other 
examples  of  the  kind  might  be  added.  The  copulative  con- 
junction, in  like  manner,  is  used  by  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  in 
the  preceding  and  two  following  verses :  and  this  shows  that 
the  intermediate  expression  is  to  be  taken  in  the  same  sense.1 

Half-communion  is  contrary,  not  only  to  scriptural  institu- 
tion, but  also  to  the  usage  of  the  early  and  middle  ages.  A 
host  of  fathers  might  be  summoned  to  testify  for  the  whole 
communion  of  primitive  times.  From  these  may  be  selected 
the  unquestionable  authority  of  Ignatius,  Justin,  Chrysostom, 
and  Jerome.2  '  One  bread,'  says  Ignatius,  '  is  broken,  and 
one  cup  distributed  to  all.'  '  The  deacons,'  says  Justin,  'give 
to  every  one  present  to  partake  of  the  blessed  bread  and  wine.' 
Chrysostom's  attestation  is  to  the  same  effect.  '  One  body  and 
one  cup,'  says  the  Grecian  saint,  '  is  presented  to  all.'  Accord- 
ing to  Jerome,  'the  priests  who  administer  the  communion, 
divide  the  Lord's  blood  among  the  people.' 

The  authority  of  Ignatius,  Justin,  Chrysostom,  and  Jerome 
evinces  the  integrity  of  communion  in  the  Christian  common- 
wealth for  400  years.  Their  testimony  is  clear  and  express  : 
and  might  be  corroborated  by  the  evidence  of  many  others, 
such  as  Dionysius,  Irenseus,  Cyprian,  Cyril,  and  Augustine. 
The  usage  of  later  ages  will  appear  from  Leo,  Gelasius,  Urban, 
and  Pascal.8 

Pope  Leo,  in  443,  commanded  the  Manicheans,  who  refused 
the  sacramental  cup,  to  be  excommunicated.  This  denomina- 
tion abhorred  wine,  which  they  called  '  the  gall  of  the  dragon  ;* 

1  Cor.  xi.  27.     Milner,  318.     Bengel.  6.  70.     Wetstein.2.  149.     Whitby,2.  193. 
Clem.  Srom.  I.  P.  318.     Lyra,  5.  51.     Walton,  5.  704.     Mill,  2.  381.     Mark   xi. 
28.  et  Luke  xx.  2.     Matt.  v.  17.  et  Luke  xxiv.  44.     Rom.  iv.  13.  et  Gal.  iii.  16. 

2  'Ev  rtotqpiov  "toi$  oa.oi£  8itv?pr]9r].     Ignat.  ad  Philad.  Cotel.  2.  77.     Ataxovoc 
5t8oaT<v  fxatj-r'w  rcov  rtapovrov  /jLfto&afieiv   arto   -tov   tvzapiofyOfveos  apfou  xtu 
oivov*  Justin,  Ap.  P.  96.    Haoiv  sv  tfcojita  rtpoacftr'at  xat  tv  Tto-r^ptov.      Chrysos.  10 
568.     Horn.  18.  in  2  Cor.     Sacerdotes  eucharistiae  serviunt  et  sanguinem  Domiui 
populis  cju8  dividunt.     Jerom.  3.  1671.  in  Sophon.  c.  3. 

3  Sanguinem  redemptionis  nostrnt:  haurire  omnino  declinent.     Deprehensa  fuerit 
sacrilega  simulatio,  notati  et  proditi  a  sanctorum  societate  sacerdotal!  autoritate 
pellantur.     Leo,  Serai.  4.     Bin.  3.  618.     Labb.  5.  283. 

Divisio  unius  ejusdemque  mysterii  sine  grandi  sacrilegio  non  potest  provenire. 
Gelasius  in  Pithou,  454.  Aquin.  Ill  80.  XI.  P.  393.  Baron.  496.  XX.  Bruy.  1. 265. 

Corpus  Dominicum  et  sanguis  Dominicus  singulatim  accipiatur.  Urban  in 
Oderic,  VI.  Labb.  12.  897,  896,  905.  Mabillon,  6'.  13. 

Novimus  per  se  panem,  per  se  vinum  ab  ipso  Domino  traditum,  quern  morem  sic 
semper  in  sancta  ecclesia  conservandum  docemus  et  praecipimus.  Pascal,  Ep.  32. 
Labb.  12.  999.  Mabillon,  6.  13.  II  ordonne  de  dormer  &  la  communion  les  deua 
espcces  separement.  Bruy.  2.  593. 


HALF  COMMUNION  NOT  KNO  IN  THE  EARLY  AGES.        431 

but  attended  the  holy  mystery  to  conceal  their  infidelity ,  and, 
in  consequence,  were  the  first  that  practised  half-communion. 
Their  disconformity,  by  which  they  were  discovered,  Leo 
termed  'sacrilegious  dissimulation,'  and  ordered  them  to  be 
expelled,  by  sacerdotal  authority,  from  Christian  society. 
Communion  in  one  species,  which  distinguished  this  sect  from 
other  Christians,  his  holiness  accounted  a  sacrilege  worthy  of 
excom  mu  nication. 

Pope  Gelasius,  on  a  similar  occasion,  in  495,  used  still 
stronger  and  more  explicit  language.  These  men,  said  his  holi- 
ness in  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  partook  of  the  sacred  body  ; 
but  actuated  by  superstition,  rejected  the  sacred  blood.  The 
hierarch  enjoined  the  entire  observance  or  the  entire  relinquish- 
ment  of  the  institution  ;  because  '  the  division  of  one  and  the 
same  mystery  could  not  be  effected  without  great  sacrilege.' 
His  infallibility,  in  prospective  anticipation,  denounced  the 
future  defalcation  in  the  mystery  as  sacrilege  and  superstition : 
and  by  his  pontifical  authority,  enacted  that  the  sacrament 
should  be  celebrated  in  both  kinds. 

Aquinas  avers  that  Gelasius,  in  this  instance,  addressed  only 
the  clergy.  He  condescends,  however,  to  give  no  reason  for 
his  assertion.  Baronius,  on  the  contrary,  admits  that  the  pontiff 
makes  no  mention  of  the  clergy,  to  whom,  therefore,  the  words, 
which  are  general,  should  not  be  confined.  The  Roman  cardi- 
nal styles  the  angelic  doctor's  account  a  frigid  solution  of  the 
difficulty.  Binius,  also,  differing  from  Aquinas,  represents  the 
pontiff's  enactment  as  a  mere  temporary  expedient,  adopted 
for  a  short  period,  on  account  of  the  present  exigence,  and  con- 
trary to  former  usage,  which  was  afterwards  to  be  resumed. 
This  statement,  like  the  other,  is  a  mere  assumption  without 
evidence.  The  two,  disagreeing  in  opinion,  agree  in  substitu- 
ting affirmation  for  proof.  Cassander  grants  that  the  deter- 
minations of  Leo  arid  Gelasius  are  conclusive  for  the  antiquity 
of  entire  communion.  The  language  of  these  pontiffs,  indeed, 
is  general,  and  cannot,  without  the  utmost  violence,  be  restric- 
ted to  the  priesthood. 

Urban,  in  1095,  presiding  with  his  cardinals  in  the  council  of 
Clermont,  consisting  of  238  bishops,  with  a  multitude  of  abbots 
and  other  persons,  followed  Leo  and  Gelasius.  This  pontiff,  in 
a  synod  more  numerous  than  the  generality  of  universal  coun- 
cils, commanded  '  the  separate  reception  of  the  Lord's  body  and 
f)lood.'  According  to  his  infallibility,  '  no  person,  except  in 
teases  of  necessity,  is  to  communicate  at  the  altar,  but  must 
partake  separately  of  the  bread  and  wine.'  Baronius  and 
Binius  suppose  that  this  canon  was  issued  against  Berengarius, 
who,  these  authors  allege,  interdicted  the  use  of  the  cup. 


432  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

This,  however,  Berengarius  never  attempted  :  and  if  he  had 
he  would  only  have  anticipated  an  unerring  communion,  and 
his  prohibition,  which  would  then  have  been  heresy,  would 
now  be  Catholicism.  Marca  and  Mabillon,  therefore,  in  dia- 
metrical opposition  to  Baronius  and  Binius,  have  shown  that 
Urban's  injunction  was  directed  against  intinction,  and  was 
published  before  the  introduction  of  half-communion  into  the 
Romish  form  of  dispensation. 

Pope  Pascal,  so  late  as  1118,  issued  enactments  on  this 
topic,  similar  to  those  of  Leo,  Gelasius,  and  Urban.  l  Our  Lord 
himself  said  the  hierarch,  '  dispensed  the  bread  and  the  wine, 
each  by  itself;  and  this  usa.ge  we  teach  and  command  the 
holy  Church  always  to  observe.'  But  Popish  Christendom 
soon  learned  to  disregard  his  infallibility's  injunctions  as  well 
as  our  Lord's  example. 

The  determinations  of  Roman  pontiffs  are  corroborated  by 
the  acknowledgements  of  popish  theologians  and  councils. 
Such  have  been  the  concessions  of  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  Lyra, 
Erasmus,  Cajetan,  Courayer,  Cassander,  and  Petavius.1  The 
ancient  church,  say  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  and  Lyra,  celebrated 
this  institution  in  both  kinds.  Erasmus  represents  half  com- 
munion as  contrary  to  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  custom.  The 
ancients,  according  to  Cajetan  and  Courayer,  made  no  differ- 
ence, on  this  point,  between  the  priesthood  and  the  people  ; 
but  admitted  both  to  the  participation  of  the  wine  as  well  as  of 
the  other  element.  Cassander,  among  other  strong  expressions, 
avers  that  the  person  who  has  the  hardihood  to  deny  this  fact 
must  possess  an  abundant  stock  of  effrontery.  Similar  admis- 
sions have  been  made  by  Bona,  Salmeron,  Valentia,  Alphonsus, 
Lindan,  Aquinas,  La  Cerda,  Vasquesius,  and  whole  files  of 
other  popish  divines  and  historians. 

The  concessions  of  councils,  on  this  point,  correspond  with 
those  of  theologians.  Similar  acknowledgments  have  been  made 
by  the  Councils  of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent.2  The  General 
Council  of  Constance,  in  its  thirteenth  session,  grants  that  '  the 

1  Ecclesia  vetus  ministrabat  sub  duplici  specie.  Bell.  IV.  4.  Fideleso  lim  in 
ecclesia  sub  utraque  specie,  panis  et  vim  communicarunt.  Baron.  57.  XLIV.  In 
primitiva  ecclesia,  populus  sub  utraque  specie  communicarunt.  Lyra  in  Labb.  17. 
874.  Erasm.  Con.  Mon.  1066.  Tune  populus  communicavit  sub  utraque  specie. 
Cnjetan  in  Aquin.  3.  395.  L'ancienne  eglise  n'  a  jamais  misaucuue  distinction  sur 
ce  point  entre  les  pretres  et  les  laiques.  Couray.  in  Paolo,  2.  206.  Non  putem 
aliquem  paulo  cordatiorem  tarn  impudentem  esse.  Cassan.  Ep.  25.  In  prima 
impudentiurn  hominum  classe.  Petavius,  c.  5. 

2  In  primitiva  ecclesia  hujusmodi  sacramentum  reciperetur  a  fidelibus  sub  utraqne 
specie.  Labb.  16.  218.  Ab  ecclesia  et  sanctis  patribus  rationabiliter  introducta, 
ethactenus  Jiutissime  observata.  Labb.  17.  370.  Lenfant,  2.  70.  Ab  initio 
Christiana*  religionis  non  infrequens  utriusque  speciei  usus  fuit;  tamen  progressu 
temporis  latissime  jam  mutatailla  cousuetudine.  Labb.  20.  122.  Gibert,  3.  331 
Thuam  2.  251. 


COMMUNION  IN  ONE  KIND  NOT  PRACTISED  IN  THE  EAST.      433 

faithful,  in  the  primitive  church,  received  this  sacrament  in  each 
kind.  This  language  is  clear,  express,  and  decisive. 

The  general  Council  of  Basil  in  its  thirtieth  session  acknow- 
ledged that  half  communion  was  an  innovation.  The  Basilians 
called  this  retrenchment '  a  rational  and  praiseworthy  custom, 
introduced  by  the  church  and  holy  fathers,  and  observed  for  a 
long  lapse  of  time.'  The  usage,  which,  in  this  manner  was  in- 
troduced, though  at  a  distant  date,  into  Christendom,  was  later 
in  its  commencement  than  the  era  of  redemption. 

The  general  Council  of  Trent,  in  its  twenty-first  session, 
admitted  the  same  in  still  clearer  language.  According  to  this 
convention,  '  both  elements  were  often  used  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Christian  religion  ;  but,  in  process  of  time,  this  usage 
was  changed,  for  just  and  weighty  reasons.'  The  sacred  synod 
here  expressly  acknowledges  the  former  use  and  posterior 
retrenchment  of  the  sacramental  cup. 

The  half-communion  of  the  Latins,  varying,  in  this  manner, 
from  all  antiquity,  is  also  a  variation  from  the  custom  of  all 
other  Christians,  Eastern  and  Western,  at  the  present  day. 
The  Greeks,  Nestorians,  Jacobites,  Armenians,  and  Syrians, 
all  these,  in  word  and  deed,  deprecate  the  popish  mutilation  of 
the  sacrament.  Some,  as  the  Armenians,  use  induction  ;  and 
others,  as  the  Greeks,  administer  the  two  elements  mixed  in  a 
spoon.  But  all  consider  both  as  necessary,  in  some  way,  for 
the  institution.  The  Western  Waldensians  agreed  on  this 
subject,  with  several  oriental  denominations  :  and  these  again 
have  been  followed  by  the  friends  of  protestantism,  dispersed 
through  the  world.1 

The  only  denomination  of  antiquity  who  practised  half-com- 
munion, were  the  Manicheans,  from  whom  the  Latins  seem  to 
have  adopted  it.  The  advpcates  of  Catholicism  appear  to  have 
copied  the  error  from  the  adherents  of  heresy.  Leo  and  Gela- 
sius  in  the  fifth  century  denounced  the  system  as  sacrilege  and 
superstition,  and  excommunicated  its  partizans.2  Their  succes- 
sors, at  a  future  day,  transferred  the  heresy,  with  all  its  accom- 
panying anathemas,  into  the  theology  of  Romanism. 

The  Manicheans  and  Latins,  however,  in  the  rejection  of  the 
cup,  were  actuated  by  different  reasons.  The  conduct  of  the  one 
proceeded  from  deep  abhorrence  ;  but  of  the  other,  from  exces- 
sive veneration,  for  the  sacramental  wine.  The  Manicheans 
accounted  wine  the  gall  of  the  dragon,  and  refused  to  drink. 
The  Latins  reckoned  it  the  blood  of  the  Messiah,  and  relin- 

1  Eamdem  quam  reliqui  omnes  in  Oriente  Christian!.  Renaudot,  2.  614.  Paolo, 
II.  More,  199.  Godeau,  1.  274,  275.  Labb.  12.  905,  906. 

*  A  sumptione  calicis  superstitiose  abstiuebant.  Bin.  3.  618.  Lab!»  5.  283 
Aquinas,  3.  393.  Bruy.  1.  224,  265. 

28 


434  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

guished  its  use  through  fear  of  profanation,  effusion,  or  other 
accidents.  The  two  extremes,  in  this  instance  as  in  many 
others,  met.  Half-communion  is  the  child  of  transubstantiation, 
and  was  the  consequence  of  the  superstitious  dread  or  horror 
which  men  began  to  harbour  for  the  supposed  blood  of 
Emmanuel. 

This  mutilation  of  the  sacrament  entered  Christendom  by 
slow  progressive  steps.  These  steps  were  intinction,  suction, 
and  then  half-communion.  Intinction,  which  consisted  in 
dipping  the  bread  in  the  wine  before  its  presentation  to 
the  communicant,  entered  at  an  early  date.  The  council 
of  Braga,  in  575,  condemned  this  superstition,  which  had  so 
soon  begun  to  infest  the  Christian  commonwealth.  Micrologus 
wrote  against  this  error,  which  had  become  frequent  in  the 
eleventh  century  :  and  Urban,  in  the  Council  of  Clermont, 
issued  an  enactment  against  this  superstitious  mode  of  com- 
munion.1 

The  second  step  to  the  defalcation  of  the  cup  consisted  in  suc- 
tion. Pipes  or  quills  were  annexed  to  the  chalice,  through 
which  the  devout  communicant  sucked  the  wine,  or,  as  it  was 
then  thought,  the  blood,  with  great  piety  and  precision.  These 
sacred  tubes  were  commonly  made  of  silver,  as  they  were  the 
channels  through  which,  as  was  alleged,  flowed  the  blood  of 
Emmanuel.2 

The  design  of  this  ecclesastical  instrument  was  to  prevent 
the  spilling  of  the  Divine  fluid,  or  the  irreverent  intrusion  of  the 
men's  beards.  Its  introduction,  however,  must  have  thrown 
an  air  of  ridicule  over  the  whole  scene.  The  act  of  sucking, 
practised  in  this  manner,  could  only  tend  to  burlesque  the 
institution,  provoke  the  satirist  to  laugh,  and  cover  the  whole 
ceremony  with  contempt.  The  mummery  of  the  mass,  indeed, 
has,  in  every  age  been  a  ludicrous  spectacle.  An  apostle  or 
primitive  Christian,  could  he  lift  his  head  from  the  grave  and 
behold  such  an  exhibition  of  folly,  would  be  wholly  at  a  loss  to 
unriddle  its  meaning:  and,  if  informed  of  its  design  must  be 
filled  with  indignation  at  the  parody  on  the  Divine  ordinance, 
and  with  pity  for  the  deluded,  but  ridiculous  votary  of 
superstition. 

The  era  of  half-communion  can  be  ascertained  with  facility 
and  precision.  No  vestige  of  it  appears  in  the  annals  of  the 
twelfth  or  any  preceding  century.  Anno  1095,  the  council  of 
Clermont  enjoined  the  separate  dispensation  of  the  bread  and 

1  Labb.  7.  580  et  12.  832,  1000.     Micrologus,  c.  26.     Mabillon,  6.  13. 

*  Erat  fistula,  qua  sanguis  Christi  a  communicantibus  hauriebatur.  Du  Cange, 
2.  167.  Mabillon,  4.  496.  Pugillaris  quibus  sanguis  a  Domiii  co  calice  exuge- 
batur.  Du  Conge,  5.  963.  On  se  eervit  de  chalumeaux  comme  on  faisoit  autreioi* 
dans  1'eglise  Komaine.  Paolo,  2.  214. 


INTRODUCTION    OF    COMMUNION    IN    ONE     KIND.  435 

wine  to  the  people.  Pascal,  in  1118,  enacted  a  similar  regula- 
tion. Bernard,  who  flourished  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, writing  expressly  on  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
stated  '  the  form  of  administration,'  which,  in  his  account, '  com- 
prehended bread  and  wine,  dispensed  separately  and  received 
by  the  people.'1  The  retrenchment,  therefore,  was  unknown  in 
his  day.  The  Saint  of  Clairvaux,  in  all  his  stores  of  knowledge, 
had  heard  nothing  of  this  innovation. 

The  integrity  of  the  sacrament  in  the  twelfth  century,  has 
been  acknowledged  by  Mabillon  and  Mezeray.  Whole  commu- 
nion, says  Mabillon,  flourished  without  any  change  in  the  year 
1121.  He  fixes  the  introduction  of  the  mutilation  in  the 
middle  of  the  twelfth  age.  But  its  use,  a,t  that  time,  could  ex- 
tend only  to  a  few  instances.  According  to  Mezeray,  '  the 
people  communicated  in  both  kinds,  in  the  twelfth  century.' 
Similar  concessions  have  been  made  by  Bona,  Cassander,  Peta* 
vius,  Marca,  Courayer,  Valentia,  and  other  Romish  authors.2 

Communion  in  one  kind  was  the  child  of  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury. The  deformity  was  ushered  into  life  at  this  era,  and, 
nourished  by  the  belief  of  transubstantiatinn,  the  superstition 
of  the  human  mind,  and  the  dread  of  profaning  the  supposed 
blood  of  God,  soon  grew  from  feeble  infancy  to  full  maturity. 
Its  reception  was  partial  in  the  begining  of  the  age ;  but 
extended  towards  its  close,  through  nearly  the  whole  of  popish 
Christendom. 

Its  origin  and  spread,  during  this  period,  appear  from  the 
testimony  of  Bonaventure  and  Aquinas.  Bonaventure,  who 
died  in  1274,  mentions  its  introduction  'into  some  churches.' 
Aquinas,  Bonaventure's  contemporary,  makes  a  similar  state- 
ment. According  to  both  these  saints,  its  observance  was  not 
universal,  but  restricted,  mnd  did  not  extend  to  the  whole,  but 
only  to  a  part.  Marca,  in  consequence,  remarks  that  *  the  use 
of  one  sacramental  emblem  did  not  simultaneously  invade  all 
the  Occidental  churches.'  Some  received  it  at  an  earlier  and 
others  at  a  later  period.  Aquinas,  says  Marca,  was  consulted 
on  the  propriety  of  this  usage  :  and  on  his  answer  in  the  affir- 
mative, all  with  emulation  embraced  the  novelty.8 

1  Formne  praescriptio  in  pane  et  vino.  Seorsnm  panem,  seorsum  tradens  et 
virium.  Bernard,  in  Coen.  Dom.  1679.  Caro  Christi  et  sanpuis,  qni  in  altari  a 
fidelibns  sumitur.  Bernard  in  Coen.  Dom.  Serm.  14.  p.  1360.  Du  Pin,  2.  233. 
Mellon,  6.  13.  Labb.  12  999. 

-  Communionem  sab  utraque  specie  adhuc  immutabilitervigniese,  anno  MCXXI. 
Communio  sub  ntraq ue  specie  jam  desierat  medio  sSculo  duodecimo.  Mabillon, 
6.  14.  On  communioit  encore  en  ce  temps  la  sous  les  deux  especes.  Mazeray, 
2.  G79,  680.  Bona,  II.  18.  Petar.  c.  5.  Marca,  in  Labb.  12.  905.  Couray.  in 
Paol.  2.  208.  Velen.  c.  10. 

3  Adhuc  in  aliquibus  ecclesiis  servatum,  ut  Bolus  sacerdos  communicet  sanguine ; 
reliqui  vero  corpore.  Bonaven.  in  John  VI.  In  quibusdam  ecclesiis  observatur, 

28* 


436  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

This  usage,  adopted  by  the  people,  was  afterward  established 
by  the  Councils  of  Constance,  Basil,  and  Trent.  '  This  reason- 
able  custom,  introduced  by  the  church  and  very  long  observed,* 
the  General  Council  of  Constance,  in  its  thirteenth  session, 
enacted  into  a  law,  and  denounced  all  its  impugners  as  heretics, 
who  should  be  punished  by  the  diocesans,  their  officials,  and 
the  inquisition.'1  The  space  which  the  council  accounted  very 
long  from  its  adoption  by  the  church,  was  about  200  years. 

The  Constantian  council  in  its  decision,  declared  the  reason- 
ableness of  curtailing  the  wine  in  the  communion  of  the  laity. 
These  reasons,  which  are  ludicrous  rather  than  convincing, 
have  been  enumerated  by  Gerson,  Ragusa,  and  the  council  of 
Trent.  The  expense  of  wine  sufficient  for  such  multitudes  of 
people  ;  the  danger  of  spilling  it  at  the  altar,  or  in  carrying  it 
over  fields,  woods,  and  mountains,  to  the  sick  ;  the  fear  of 
contamination  in  dirty  vessels,  or  by  the  touch  of  the  laity  ;  its 
liability  to  sour  and  become  vinegar,  and  by  this  means  to 
occasion  idolatry;  its  tendency  to  putrefy  and  produce  flies 
and  worms  ;  the  disgust  which  might  arise  from  so  many 
drinking  out  of  the  same  cup  ;  the  dread  of  the  holy  fluid's 
freezing  and  becoming  ice  ;  the  apprehension  of  the  men's  beards 
dipping  in  daring  and  unseemly  irreverence  into  the  sacred 
liquor,  which  was  accounted  the  blood  of  Emmanuel  ;  all 
these  reasons  and  several  others,  were  urged  in  favour  of  the 
retrenchment.2 

The  reasons  are  better  fitted  to  provoke  laughter,  than  to 
produce  conviction.  But  the  Cardinal  of  Angelo  adduced  a 
reason  which  is  shocking  rather  than  ridiculous.  The  cardinal, 
in  a  Roman  consistory,  and  without  any  reprehension  from  his 
holiness,  declared  that  *  the  sacramental  wine,  if  administered 
to  laymen,  is  poison  rather  than  medicine  ;  and  that  the  death 
of  the  patient  would  be  better  than  his  recovery  effected  by  such 
a  remedy.'  Francisco,  a  Jesuit,  urged  similar  blasphemy  in  a 
general  congregation  at  the  council  of  Trent.  *  Satan,'  the 
Jesuit  averred,  «  was  tempting  the  synod  to  grant  the  people  a 
cup  of  poison,  under  the  appearance  of  the  Lord's  blood. 'a 

The  enactment  of  Constance  was  renewed  and  confirmed  at 

at  populo  Biimendtis  sangnis  non  detur.     Aquinas,  III.   80.   XII.     Consuetudo  ilia 

unius  symbol!  non  statim  invasit  omnes  ecclesias  occidentis.     Marca,  in  Labb.  12. 

905. 

1  Hujusmodi  consuetudo  habenda  est  pro  lege,  quam  non  licet  reprobare.     As- 

serentes  oppositum,  tanquam   h^retici   arcendi   sunt,    et   graviter   puniendi    per 

dioecesanos  locorum  seu  officiales   eorum,  aut   inquisitores   haereticae   pravitatis 

Labb.  16.218. 

*  Ragiisn  in  Labb.  17.  883.     Paolo,  2.  212.     Du  Pin,  3.  552.     Arsdekin,  1.  223 
3  II  lie  donneroit  jamais  pour  medicine  aux  Francois  un  calice  rempli  de  poison 

Paolo,  2.  117.     Satan  faissoit  preaentement  presenter  au   people   uue   coupe   de 

poison  sous  le  voile  du  culice.     Paolo,  2.  212. 


INCONSISTENCY  OF  THE  BASILIAN  COUNCIL  WITH  ITSELF.    437 

Basil.  The  general  council,  in  1437,  in  its  thirtieth  sessioa 
*  denied  the  obligation  of  the  laity  or  non-officiating  clergy,  by 
any  divine  command,  to  partake  in  both  kinds;  admitted  the 
profitableness  of  communion,  in  each  way,  to  the  worthy,  accor- 
ding to  the  institution  and  observance  of  the  church  ;  and  estab- 
lished by  law  the  custom  of  participating  in  one  element/1 

The  Basilians  varied  from  the  Constantian  decision.  The  Con- 
stantians  denounced  as  heresy,  what  the  Basilians  represented 
as  agreeable  to  the  institution  of  the  church.  The  former  ex- 
communicated as  obnoxious  to  punishment  and  the  inquisition, 
those  whom  the  latter  described  as  worthy  of  communion  and 
salvation.  The  one  authorised  as  Catholicism,  what  the  other 
condemned  as  heresy.'2 

The  Basilians  differed  from  themselves,  as  well  as  from  the 
Constantians.3  The  sacred  synod,  notwithstanding  their  own 
decision,  granted  the  participation  of  the  cup  to  the  Bohemians 
and  Moravians.  This  indeed  became,  in  some  measure,  a 
matter  of  necessity.  Mathias,  Jacobel,  and  Huss  had,  at  the 
hazard  of  martyrdom,  taught  and  established  whole  communion 
in  the  kingdom  of  Bohemia.  Determined  to  maintain  their 
freedom,  and  headed  by  Zisca,  the  ablest  general,  though  blind, 
that  ever  took  the  field,  the  brave  Bohemians  withstood  all  the 
temporal  and  spiritual  artillery  of  the  popedom ;  and  extorted 
by  force,  the  concession  which  wras  refused  to  reason.  The 
integrity  of  the  sacrament,  which  the  Basilians  allowed  the 
Bohemians,  was  a  violation  of  their  own  law,  issued  in  favour 
of  half-communion. 

This  subject,  on  which  the  councils  of  Constance  and  Basil 
had  decided,  came  before  the  council  of  Trent  in  its  twenty-first 
session.  The  Trentine  discussion,  poll,  and  canons,  on  this 
topic,  as  delineated  by  the  pens  of  Paolo  and  Du  Pin,  opened  a 
scene  of  diversity,  contention,  chicanery,  and  folly,  unequalled 
in  all  the  annals  of  the  Reformation,  or  in  the  records  of  any 
assembly,  civil,  ecclesiastical,  or  literary. 

The  Trentine  discussion  of  this  question  exhibited  all  the 
charms  of  variety.  The  divines,  in  a  general  congregation, 
wrangled  in  endless  altercation,  and  exhausted  the  patience  of 
the  bishops.  A  faction  of  sixty-three  doctors  opposed  the  opi- 
nions of  all  the  rest.  The  prelates  differed  like  the  theologians. 
Cardinal  Mandruccio  argued  in  the  council  for  the  restoration 
of  the  cup,  and  was  followed  by  the  bishops  of  Otranto,  Praga, 
Coimbra,  Modena,  Leria,  and  Ossimo.  The  patriarchs  of 
Aquileia,  Venice,  and  Jerusalem,  supported  the  contrary,  and 

1  Sive  sub  una  specie,  sive  sub  cluplici  quis  communicet  secundum  ordinationem 
ten  observantiam  ecclesire,  proficit  digue  communicantibus  ad  salutem.  Labb. 
17  370.  3  Bmy.  4.  119  3  Labb.  17.  1271.  Lenfant,  2.  42 


4:38  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY* 

were  followed  by  the  bishops  of  Rossano,  Philadelphia,  Lava, 
Braga,  Leon,  Almeria,  Lugo,  and  Imola.  Fifty,  possesssing 
the  greatest  intelligence  and  piety,  advocated  a  return  to  the 
primeval  usage.  This  the  Spanish  and  Venetians,  actuated 
by  various  motives,  opposed  with  the  utmost  obstinacy.1 

This  diversity  in  the  discussion  was  succeeded  by  equal  vari- 
ety in  the  poll.  A  hundred  and  forty-six  voted.  Twenty-nine 
voted  for  the  restoration  of  the  cup,  and  thirty-eight  against  it. 
Fourteen  were  for  deferring  the  decision,  and  ten  for  sending  a 
delegation  to  Germany,  to  investigate  the  subject.  Twenty- 
four  would  refer  the  question  to  the  pontiff',  and  thirty-one  to 
the  prelacy.2 

The  majority  that  voted  against  the  restoration  of  the  cup, 
was  changed  into  a  minority  by  legatine  cabal  and  finesse. 
The  legates,  who  wished  to  refer  all  to  the  pope,  engaged 
Lamellino  and  Visconto  to  use  their  influence  for  this  purpose 
with  the  opposition.  The  patriarchs  yielded  to  the  address  of 
the  two  bishops,  and  drew  with  them  the  Venetians,  who  were 
numerous.  Their  plans,  in  consequence,  succeeded,  and  a 
discretionary  power  of  granting  or  refusing  the  cup  to  the  laity 
was  vested  in  the  Roman  pontiff'.  The  majority  of  an  unerring 
synod,  in  this  manner,  issued  a  decision,  which  was  afterwnrd 
reversed  by  a  minority,  augmented  by  intrigue  into  a  majority.' 

The  Trentine  canons,  notwithstanding  the  jarring  debate  and 
suffrage,  were  strong  and  express  in  favour  of  half-communion. 
The  infallible  assembly  declared  the  lawfulness  and  validity  of 
participation  in  one  species,  the  illegality  of  rejecting  the  syno- 
dal sentence  or  attributing  error  to  the  church,  and  cursed,  as 
usual,  all  who  dissented.  Divided  among  themselves,  and 
changing  their  decisions  at  the  nod  of  the  pontiff,  or  the  cabals 
of  the  prelacy,  the  holy  synod  launched  its  anathemas,  with  the 
most  liberal  profusion,  against  all  who  should  suspect  them  of 
error  or  resist  their  tyranny.* 

The  popish  priesthood  and  people,  dispersed  through  the 
European  nations,  were,  like  tho.^e  which  met  at  Trent,  divided 
in  their  opinions.  Spain  and  Italy  dissented  from  France,  Ger- 
many, Bohemia,  Poland,  and  Hungary.  The  Spanish  and  Ita- 
lians were  against  the  restoration  of  the  sacramental  cup.  The 
application  for  this  purpose,  the  Spanish  and  Italian  clergy 
opposed  with  all  their  oratory  and  influence  in  the  Roman  con- 
sistory and  council  of  Trent :  and  even  stigmatized  the  French 

1  Paolo,  2.  264,  265.     Da  Pin,  3.  544—570. 
8  Du  Pin,  3.  568,  569. 

3  Totum  negotiura  ad  Pontificem  retulit.     Thuan.  XXXIII.  1.     Paolo,  2.  2.00. 

4  Ecclesia  hanc  consuetudinem  sub  altera  specie  communicandi  approbavit,  et 
pro  lege  habendam  decrevit.     Labb.  20.  122,  123.     Gibert,  3.  331. 


OPPOSITION    TO    THE    TRENTINE    CANONS.  4:39 

and  Germans,  who  solicited  the  return  of  this  privilege,  with 
the  imputation  of  heresy.1 

The  French  king,  clergy,  and  people,  on  the  contrary,  insist- 
ed on  the  integrity  of  the  sacrament.  The  king  of  France,  in 
1561,  requested  this  favour  for  himself  and  his  subjects.  The 
petition  was  afterward  renewed  at  Trent.  The  French  sover- 
eign supplicated  the  renewal  of  the  law  of  Leo  and  Gelasius, 
which  enacted  the  use  of  both  elements  in  the  communion. 
The  petition,  indeed,  was  rejected  ;  but  it  showed,  nevertheless, 
the  mind  of  the  nation,  on  the  integrity  of  the  institution.2 

The  Germans,  clergy,  and  laity,  supported  the  motion  of  the 
French.  The  Emperor,  the  Duke  of  Bavaria,  and  the  other 
princes  of  Germany  laboured  for  this  purpose  both  in  the  Treri- 
tine  council,  and  afterward  at  the  Roman  court.  The  Empe- 
ror's ambassador  in  the  council  represented  whole  communion 
as  the  anxious  desire  of  Germany,  Hungary,  Austria,  Moravia, 
Silesia,  Carinthia,  Carniola,  Stiria,  Bavaria,  and  Swabia.  All 
the  friends  of  Catholicism,  in  these  states,  which  contained 
such  an  immense  population,  urged  the  claims  with  an  impa- 
tience that  bordered  on  rebellion.  One  fact,  mentioned  in  the 
council  of  Trent,  will  show  the  zeal  of  the  Germans  in  this 
cause.  These,  when  asked  for  supplies  against  the  Turks,  who 
were  ready  to  enter  not  only  Hungary,  but  also  Germany  and 
the  neighbouring  nations,  refused,  till  the  integrity  of  commu- 
nion should  be  restored. 

The  people  of  Bohemia  and  Hungary  showed,  if  possible, 
still  more  anxiety.  This  appears  from  the  strong,  but  indeed 
unwarrantable  arguments  which  they  used  to  effect  their  purpose. 
The  laity,  in  these  states,  forced  the  clergy  to  dispense  the 
sacramental  cup  by  threatening  them,  if  they  refused,  with 
the  loss  of  life  and  property.  Such  conduct,  indeed,  was 
indefensible.  The  use  ot  menace  and  compulsion,  on  questions 
of  religion  and  conscience,  is  unscriptural.  But  the  fact  mani- 
fested their  zeal,  if  not  their  knowledge,  in  their  efforts  to  obtaic 
their  end.3 

Such  were  the  variations  of  Romanism,  on  the  subject  of  the 
communion.  A  church  boasting  of  immutability,  changed  and 
disputed  in  reckless  inconsistency.  The  usage  of  Jesus,  his 
apostles,  and  antiquity,  observed  for  1200  years,  was  repealed 
by  the  infallible  council  of  Constance,  followed  by  those  of  Basil 
and  Trent.  The  change  was  adopted  from  the  Manicheans, 
who  were  the  partizans  of  heresy,  and  whose  aversion  to  the 
eucharistic  cup  was  denounced  by  Leo  and  Gelasius,  as  sacrilege 

1  Paolo,  2.  219,  220,  399.     Thuan.  2.  416.     Du  Pin,  3.  552. 

3  Paolo,  2.  116.     Du  Pin,  3.  522.     Thuan.  2.  361. 

»  Paolo,  2.  220.     Du  Pin,  3.  551.  552,  564-     Thuan.  2.  361.  441.     Bruy.  4.  621. 


440  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

and  superstition.  The  synod  of  Basil,  which  confirmed  the 
law  of  half-communion,  but  admitted  the  utility  of  reception  in 
both  kinds,  varied  from  the  assembly  of  Constance,  which 
consigned  the  participators  in  the  cup  to  the  inquisitors  of 
heretical  pravity.  The  council  of  Trent,  disputing  and 
divided  among  themselves,  determined  by  a  majority  for  with- 
holding the  cup  from  the  people :  and  shortly  afterward, 
changed  by  papal  intrigue,  resolved,  by  another  majority,  to 
confer  on  the  Roman  pontiff  a  discretionary  power  of  granting 
whole  communion  to  the  laity.  The  popish  clergy  aad  laity 
dispersed  through  European  Christendom,  differed  about  the 
canons  issued,  on  this  question,  at  Trent.  Spain  and  Italy,  in 
general,  condemned  whole  communion,  which  was  demanded 
with  ardour  and  anxiety  in  France,  Germany,  Bohemia 
Poland,  Hungary,  and  several  smaller  states. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


EXTREME    UNCTION. 

»*RIATIONS   ON    ITS  EFFECTS — DISAGREEMENT  ON  ITS  INSTITUTION— THE  SCRIPTURAL 
AND    POPISH    UNCTION    VARY     IN     THEIR     ADMINISTRATOR,     SIGN,     FORM,     SUBJECT, 

AND    END RECOVERY     OF     HEALTH     THE     SCRIPTURAL     END     OF     ANOINTING     THK 

SICK TRADITIONAL    EVIDENCE HISTORY    OF    EXTREME    UNCTION 

EXTREME  unction  in  the  Popish  system,  consists  in  the  sacra- 
mental application  of  oil  to  the  sick,  for  the  remission  of  sin. 
The  administrator  is  a  priest  or  bishop.  The  subject  is  the 
sick,  who,  to  all  human  appearance,  are  at  the  point  of  death. 
The  sign  is  oil,  consecrated  by  episcopal  benediction.  The 
form  requires  the  application  of  the  sign  to  the  eyes,  ears,  nose, 
mouth,  hands,  feet,  and,  if  the  patient  be  a  male,  to  the  reins, 
accompanied  with  prayer. 

Popish  doctors,  notwithstanding  their  pretended  unity,  vary, 
as  Faber,  Bellarmine,  Estius,  and  Dens  have  shown,  on  the 
effect  of  this  unction.  Dens  has  enumerated  no  less  than  ten 
different  opinions,  entertained  on  this  point  in  the  Romish  com- 
munion. The  chief  differences,  however,  may  be  reduced  to 
four,  which  have  given  rise  to  four  factions  in  Papal  Christen- 
dom. 

One  faction,  patronised  by  Bonaventure,  Fleury,  Challenor, 
and  the  Trent  Catechism,  reckon  the  effect  of  this  ceremony, 
the  remission  of  venial  sins.  But  this  opinion  has  been  rejected 
by  others,  such  as  Aquinas,  Soto,  Valencia,  Scotus,  Faber,  and 
many  moderns.  A  second  party,  supported  by  Estius,  Dens, 
and  the  council  of  Mentz,  as  well  as  by  other  divines,  extend 
its  effects  to  the  dismission  of  mortal  transgressions.  This 
theory,  however,  has  been  deprecated  by  Aquinas,  Soto, 
Valentia,  Scotus,  Bellarmine,  Faber,  and  many  other  theolo- 
gians, because  mortal  offences  are  pardoned  in  baptism,  and 
afterwards  in  penance.  A  third  class  include  both  venial  and 
mortal  sins  in  the  effect  of  this  unction.  This,  according  to 
the  interpretation  of  Estius  and  Calmet,  was  the  doctrine  of 
the  council  of  Trent,  which  conferred  on  this  ceremony  the 
power  of  cancelling  unexpiated  and  remaining  transgressions. 


442  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  ! 

This  explanation,  therefore,  embracing  both  trifling  and  heinous 
sins,  sins  both  of  frailty  and  enormity,  is  clothed  by  the  Tren- 
tine  dictators  with  all  the  glory  of  infallibility. 

A  fourth  description  ascribe  the  effect  of  this  institution 
neither  to  venial  nor  mortal  iniquity,  but  to  weakness,  infirmity, 
and  the  remains  of  sin.  This,  which  some  reckon  the  common 
opinion,  has  been  sanctioned  by  Aquinas,  Soto,  Valentia, 
Durandus,  and  many  moderns.  But  these  doctors,  differing 
from  others,  differ  also  among  themselves  on  the  meaning 
attached  to  the  remains  of  sin.  Valentia,  in  the  remains  of 
sin,  comprehends  aversion  to  good  and  inclination  to  evil ; 
while  Bellarmine  and  others,  at  the  expense  of  a  little  incon- 
sistency, extend  it  to  venial  and  mortal  offences,  as  well  as  to 
sorrow  and  anxiety.1 

Popish  doctors  vary  in  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  as 
well  as  on  its  effects.  Lombard  and  several  since  his  day, 
refer  its  institution  to  mere  apostolic  authority ;  while  others 
attribute  its  appointment  to  our  Lord,  and  its  promulgation  to 
the  apostle  James.  Some  identify  this  ceremony  with  the 
anointing  mentioned  by  Mark  in  his  gospel.  Such  were  Beda, 
Cajetan,  Arsdekin,  Maldonat,  and  the  Rhemish  annotators,  as 
well  as  the  Trent  Catechism,  and  the  councils  of  Milan,  Sens, 
and  Augsburg.  Many,  on  the  contrary,  distinguish  between 
the  apostolic  ceremony  recorded  by  Mark,  and  the  sacramental 
rite  mentioned  by  James.  Such  were  Jonas,  Valentia,  Bellar- 
mine, Faber,  and  Dens,  as  well  as  the  councils  of  Worms, 
Cologne,  Florence,  and  Trent.2 

The  council  of  Trent,  puzzled  and  inconsistent,  displayed, 
on  this  occasion,  a  striking  variety.  This  unerring  assembly 

1  Effectus  non  uno  modo  ab  omnibus  explicatur.  Quidam  de  remissione  venia- 
Hum  intelligunt.  Alii  de  peccatia  mortalium  Apostolum  exponunt.  Ad  omuia 
cujuscumqne  generis  peccata  extendendum  videtur.  Peccati  reliquias  abstergit. 
Estius,  2.  1145.  labb.  19.  1412. 

Peccata  veuiulia'remittit.  Cat.  Trid.  169.  Fleury,246.  Challenor,  113.  Rivers, 
c  7.  Faber,  2  262. 

Quidam  dicunt  contra  veniale  ordinatur ;  sed  hoc  non  videtur  verum.  Aquinas, 
3.  465.  Faber,  2.  259. 

Aquinas,  Soto,  Valeutia,  et  multi  recentiores  asserunt  proprium  effectura  hujua 
sacratnenti  non  esse  abstergere  et  delere  peccata  venialia;  sed  esse  sanare  ef  <ib 
Btergere  peccatorum  reliquias.  Non  conveuiunt  Doctores  hujus  opiniouis.  t  aoer, 
2.  259,  260. 

Peccata  mortalia  remittit.  Dens,  7.  18.  Estius,  2.  1145.  Non  mtelligitur  de 
peccato  mortali.  Faber,  2.  259. 

Infert  Scotus  illud  non  potest  intelligi  de  peccatis  mortalibus.  Omnes  asserunt 
peccata  mortalia  dimitti  solum  per  poenitentiam.  Faber,  2.  253,  261. 

Concilium  Tridentinum  inquit  effectual  hujus  sacramenti  esse  peccata,  si  qua* 
sint,  delere,  et  reliquias  peccati  abstergere.  Faber,  2.  260. 

Delicta,  si  qnre  adhuc  expianda  et  peccati  reliquias  abstergit.     Labb.  20.  98. 

3  Unctioues  adhibitse  ab  Apostolis,  lion  etant  sacramentales.  Dens,  7.  2.  Faber 
2.  257.  Paolo,  1.  377.  Jonas,  III.  14.  Dachery,  1.  316'  Arsdekin,  1.  245 
Beda,  5.  693.  Labb.  10.  467,  and  19.  269. 


VARIATIONS  IN  THE  EFFECTS  OF  EXTREME  UNCTION.      443 

nad  declared  that  this  sacrament  was  instituted  by  Jesus  and 
recorded  by  Mark.  But  a  divine  who  was  present,  and  who 
possessed  rather  more  sense  than  his  fellows,  remarked  that 
this  ceremony  could  not  have  been  observed  at  that  time,  as 
the  apostles,  even  according  to  the  Trentine  assembly,  were 
not  then  priests,  and  were,  therefore,  incapable  of  administer- 
ing it.  The  meddling  theologian  disconcerted  the  sacred 
synod.  The  holy  fathers,  embarrassed  by  the  inconsistency, 
began  to  invent  means  of  disentangling  themselves  from  the 
contradiction.  Extreme  unction,  said  the  infallible  assembly, 
was  not  instituted,  but  merely  INSINUATED  in  Mark,  and  after- 
ward published  in  James.  The  institution  was,  with  the 
utmost  facility,  transubstantiated  by  these  theological  jugglers 
into  an  insinuation.  The  holy  men  insinuated  what  they  feared 
to  affirm.  The  unction  of  the  Evangelist  became,  in  the  hands 
of  the  wise  and  learned  Trentines,  an  insinuated  sacrament. 
But  the  insinuation  of  the  sacred  council  was,  under  the 
auspices  of  its  authors,  destined  to  make  another  change,  and 
return  to  its  ancient  form.  The  insinuation  was  again  transub- 
stantiated into  an  institution.  The  council's  canon  declared 
extreme  unction  a  true  sacrament,  instituted  by  Jesus  and 
published  by  James :  and  then  thundered  anathemas  against 
all  who  should  gainsay.1 

The  Rhemists,  with  a  happy  versatility,  discovered  another 
plan  of  interpretation.  These  expositors,  by  their  magic  touch, 
transformed  the  anointing  related  in  the  gospel  into  the  figure 
of  a  sacrament.  The  apostles,  it  seems,  though  at  that  time 
no  priests,  and  incapable  of  performing  this  ceremony  in  reality, 
administered  it  in  metaphor.  The  Trentine  insinuation  be- 
came a  Rhemish  trope.  The  sacrament  of  the  council  degen- 
erated, in  the  laboratory  of  these  annotators,  into  a  mere 
emblem.  This,  no  doubt,  was  very  clever  and  ingenious,  and, 
though  a  little  at  variance  with  many  other  expositions  in  the 
same  unchangeable  communion,  removed  all  difficulty.  Popish 
councils  and  commentators,  in  this  manner,  could  transform  an 
unction  into  a  metaphor,  an  institution  into  an  insinuation,  and 
the  insinuation  back  again  into  an  institution,  with  as  much 
ease  as  an  alchemist,  in  his  own  crazy  mind,  could  transmute 
copper  into  gold,  or  a  priest,  in  the  credulity  of  superstition, 
could  transubstantiate  a  wafer  into  a  God. 

Extreme  unction  is  a  variation  from  scriptural  unction.  The 
Scriptural  and  Romish  institution  differ  in  the  administration, 
sign,  form,  subject,  and  end.  The  Popish  unction  requires  but 
one  administrator.  This  has  been  defined  by  Pope  Alexander 

*  Paolo,  1.  570.  Faber,  2.  253.  Cat.  Trid.  167  Labb.  20.  98.  102.  E&tius,2. 
1443.  Rivers,  c.  7. 


444  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPEHY : 

and  Benedict,  as  well  as  by  the  Trentine  council.  A  solitary 
priest,  unaided  and  alone,  can,  with  facility  and  dispatch,  per- 
form the  whole  ceremony  in  all  its  diversified  evolutions,  and 
in  all  its  modern  additions  and  improvements.  The  scriptural 
unction,  recommended  by  the  pen  of  inspiration,  requires,  on 
the  contrary,  a  plurality  of  administrators.  The  sick  person 
was  to  *  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church.'  The  words  which 
signify  the  anointing  and  the  prayer  are  in  the  plural  number, 
indicating  beyond  all  question,  the  necessity  of  more  than  one 
dispensator.1 

Extreme  and  Scriptural  unction  differ  also  in  their  sign. 
The  sign  of  both,  indeed,  is  oil.  But  the  oil  of  the  popish 
ceremony  must  be  consecrated  by  a  bishop,  and  the  consecra- 
tion is  attended  with  a  world  of  superstition  and  chicanery. 
The  Romish  institution,  celebrated  with  any  other  kind  of  oil, 
is  invalid.  Should  the  administrator,  through  mistake,  use 
chrism,  he  is  instructed  by  the  council  of  Milan  to  repeat  the 
ceremony,  and  apply  the  proper  sign.  The  holy  oil  only,  is, 
in  this  ordinance,  possessed  of  any  efficacy.  The  primeval 
Christians  knew  nothing  of  these  superstitions.  The  use  of 
the  ceremony,  stated  by  the  sacred  historian  Mark,  was,  accord- 
ing to  the  council  of  Trent,  prior  to  the  existence  of  the  priestly 
or  episcopal  order:  and  the  unguent,  therefore,  employed  at 
that  time,  was  guiltless  of  episcopal  benediction.2 

The  modern  and  primitive  unctions  differ  in  their  form,  as 
well  as  in  their  administrator  and  sign.  The  form  of  the 
Popish  rite,  consisting  in  anointing  and  prayer,  is  one  continued 
scene  of  superstition,  balderdash,  and  indecency.  The  priest 
makes  the  sign  of  the  cross  three  times  on  the  sick  person,  in 
the  name  of  the  Trinity.  The  imposition  of  the  sacerdotal 
hands,  and  the  invocation  of  angels,  patriarchs,  prophets, 
apostles,  martyrs,  confessors,  and  virgins,  are  used  for  the  ex- 
tinction of  the  power  of  the  devil,  and  every  unclean  spirit  in 
the  patient's  members,  marrow,  and  every  joint  of  his  limbs. 
The  priest  then  dips  his  thumb  in  the  holy  ointment,  and 
anoints  the  sick  person  in  the  form  of  a  cross  on  the  eyes,  ears, 
nose,  mouth,  hands,  and  feet.  These  organs  are  then  wiped 
with  cotton,  which  is  burned,  and  the  ashes,  for  fear  of  pro- 
fanation, are  thrown  into  the  sacrarium.  Even  the  water  with 


1  Minister  hujus  sacramenti  cst  sacerdos.     Labb.  20.  101.     Bin.  8.  866.     Non  a 
pluribus,  sed  ab  nno.     Estius,  2.  1142.     Dens,  7.  25. 

2  Materia  est  oleum  olivarum.     Consecratio  episcopalis  est  necessaria.     Faber, 
2.  254.     Bin.  8.  8G6.     Crabb.  3.  506. 

Non  nisi  oleo  per  episcopum  benedicto  fas  est  hanc  sacram  unctionem   peragi. 
Estius,  2.  1142.     Kit.  Rom.  96. 

Les  Apotres  n'etoient  point  encore  pretres.     Calmet,  Cora.  19,  20. 


VARIATION    BETWEEN    SCRIPTURAL    AND    POPISH    UNCTION.    445 

which  the  priest  washes  his  hands  is,  for  the  same  reason, 
poured  into  a  clean  and  retired  place.1 

The  administration  of  this  observance  adds  indecency  to 
superstition.  The  patient,  except  in  women  and  Monks,  is 
anointed  on  the  loins  or  reins,  because,  says  the  Roman  Ritual, 
this  is  the  seat  of  lasciviousness  and  pleasure.2  This  part  of  the 
ceremony  is  of  the  most  revolting  description,  and  is  expressed 
in  the  language  of  grossness  and  indelicacy.  The  whole  scene, 
as  represented  in  their  formulas,  must,  to  every  mind  possessing 
the  least  sensibility  or  refinement,  present  a  spectacle  of  loath- 
ing and  disgust. 

This  ceremony  sometimes  assumes  a  truly  ridiculous  appear- 
ance. The  sacerdotal  thumb  is  the  usual  instrument  in  con- 
veying the  greasy  application.  But  when  pestilence  prevails 
and  contagion  threatQns,  the  priest  may  apply  the  sacramental 
oil  with  a  long  rod.  This,  he  dips  with  due  gravity  into  the 
blessed  fluid  :  and  standing  at  a  respectful  distance  to  avoid  in- 
fection, he  extends  his  wand  in  proper  form  and  in  a  graceful 
manner,  to  the  sick,  whom,  to  escape  danger,  he  anoints  with 
this  simple  but  useful  ecclesiastical  machine,  instead  of  his  pre- 
cious thumb.  The  rod,  having  by  this  means  administered  the 
sacrament  of  the  dying,  and  communicated  all  the  virtues  of 
the  holy  ointment,  is  burned,  and  the  ashes,  with  propei 
attention,  cast  into  some  sacred  place.3  The  simplicity  of  the 
Apostolical  institution  presents  a  complete  contrast  to  this 
display  of  complicated  folly,  uncountenanced  by  one  hint  of 
revelation  or  a  single  monument  of  Christian  antiquity. 

The  Apostolic  and  Popish  unctions  differ  in  the  persons  to 
whom  they  are  to  be  administered.  The  latter  is  applied  only 
to  those  who,  in  all  human  appearance,  are  departing,  and,  in 
consequence,  has  been  called  the  sacrament  of  the  dying.  The 
sacerdotal  pr^sician  never  administers  this  spiritual  prescrip- 


1  Intincto  pollice  in  oleo  sancto,  in  modum  crucis  ungit  infirmum.     Sacerdos 
tingat  loca  iimncta  novo  globulo  bombacii,  et  comburat,  cineresque  projiciat  in 
Bacrarium.     Kit.  Rom.  96,  97. 

Lavat  inanns  et  lavatio  non  nisi  in  loco  mundo  et  abdito  solet  effundi.     Ulderic 
III   28.     Dachery,  1.  700.     Dens,  7.  6. 

2  Septima  in  organo  principal!  generative.     Faber,  2.  254.     Renes,  velut  volup 
tatis  et  libinis  sedes,  unguntur.     Cat.    Trid.    168.     Super  inguines   per   ardorem 
Ubidinis.     Dachery,  1.  700. 

Quoad  renes,  non  est  decens,  praesertim  in  foeminis  et  viris  religiosis.     Arsdo 
kin,  2.  378.     Rit.  Rom.  93. 

3  Peste  grasaante,  potest  uti  virga  oblonga  oleo  tincta,  quam  postea  comburat. 
Arsdekin,  2.  378 

Penicillo  inungatur  corpus  ffigrotos  peste  infecti.     Licet,  in  eo  casu,  inunger* 
cegroadhibita  virga,  cujus  extrema  parte  sit  gossypium  oleo  sacro  imbutum.     Dens, 


446  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

tion,  while  there  is  any  expectation  of  recovery.  The  sacred 
unction  is  always  intended  as  a  mittimus  to  eternity.1 

The  Apostolic  unction  was  administered  to  weak  or  infirm 
persons.  Mark  and  James,  indeed,  use  two  different  terms  on 
this  subject;  but  both,  according  to  their  derivation  and  their 
usual  acceptation,  signify  «  without  strength,'  and  include  all 
who  are  in  a  state  of  weakness  and  infirmity.  The  words  of 
the  Evangelist  and  the  Apostle  never  imply  that  severity  of 
sickness  or  of  pain,  which  preclude  all  hopes  of  recovery,  and 
which,  in  a  short  time,  commonly  issues  in  death.  The  expres- 
sion used  by  James  is  applied  to  the  woman  who  had  *  a  spirit 
of  infirmity'  eighteen  years,  whom  Jesus  healed  in  Jfcdea,  and 
to  the  diseased  persons  who  came  to  Paul  in  the  island  of 
Melita  and  were  cured.  Those  who  could  visit  Jesus  and  Paul 
could  not  be  labouring  under  severe  complaints,  or  such  as 
would  indicate  a  speedy  dissolution.2 

But  the  great  and  leading  distinction  between  the  Scriptural 
and  Romish  unction  consists  in  the  end  or  effect.  The  effect  of 
the  former  referred  to  the  body  ;  but  of  the  latter  to  the  soul. 
The  ancients  anointed  the  infirm  for  the  expulsion  of  sickness 
and  the  restoration  of  strength.  The  moderns  anoint  the  dying 
for  the  pardon  of  sin  and  the  conveyance  of  grace.  The  one 
used  it  as  a  miraculous  and  temporary  remedy  for  the  recovery 
of  health ;  and  the  other  as  an  ordinary  and  permanent  sacra- 
ment for  the  attainment  of  salvation.  The  design  of  the  primi- 
tive ceremony  was  to  enable  men  to  live  ;  but  of  the  present 
superstition  to  prepare  them  to  die.3 

The  popish  communion,  indeed,  both  in  its  ancient  and 
modern  rituals,  refers,  on  this  topic,  to  the  body  as  well  as  to 
the  soul ;  and  to  the  recovery  of  health  as  well  as  to  the  pardon 
of  sin.  But  its  modern  usage  displays  a  striking  aberration 
from  the  scriptural  model.  Romanism  makes  the  recovery  of 
health  conditional,  which  revelation  makes  absolute  :  and  the 
remission  of  sins  absolute,  which  revelation  makes  conditional. 
The  Lord,  says  James,  without  any  condition,  "  will  raise  him 
up."  But  the  recovery,  in  the  Romish  theology,  is  clogged 
with  the  condition  of  expedience.  The  expiation  of  iniquity, 
on  the  contrary,  is,  in  scriptural  language,  united  with  the 
condition,  "  if  he  have  committed  sin."  But  forgiveness,  in  the 

1  Hoc  sacramentum  nisi  infirmo,  de  cujus  morte  timetur  dari  non  debet.  Labb. 
18.  550.  Exeuntibus  a.  corpore  detur.  Aquin.  3.  146.  Cat.  Trid.  168.  Bit 
Rom.  91.  Labb.  20.  98.  Erasmus,  6.  174. 

3  Mark,  vi.  13.     James  v.  14.     Luke  xiii.  11.     Acts  xxviii.  9. 

3  L'onction  qu'  employient  les  Apostres  regardoit  principalement  les  maladies 
dn  corps ;  au  lieu  que  1'onction  des  malades,  qui  se  fait  dansl'eglise,  a  pour  premier 
objet  les  maladies  de  Tame.  Calmet,  Conim.  19.  50.  Le  salut  de  son  ame  est 
L'objet  de  ce  sacrement.  Calm.  Comm.  24.  80. 


VARIATION  BETWEEN  SCRIPTURAL  AND  POPISH  UNCTION.    447 

popish  system,  is  attached  to  the  unction  without  any  condition. 
This  variation  and  perversion  are  evidently  intended  for  the 
purpose  of  accommodating  the  statement  of  revelation  to  a 
syst3m  of  superstition.1 

The  declaration  of  Mark,  compared  with  the  injunction  of 
James.  wiH  clearly  shew  the  truth  of  the  protestant  interpreta- 
tion, which  refers  the  words  to  the  body  and  the  recoveiy  of 
health.  Ti.e  two  inspired  penmen,  it  is  plain,  allude  to  the  same 
ceremony.  Both  mention  the  same  agents,  actions,  patients, 
and  effects.  This  has  been  shewn  by  Bede,  (Ecumenius, 
Jonas,  Lyn*,  Cajetan,  Erasmus,  D'Achery,  Maldonat,  and 
Arsdekin,  as  well  as  by  the  Rhemish  annotators,  and  the  councils 
of  Milan,  Sens,  Augsburg,  a.nd  Trent.  The  latter  assembly, 
in  all  its  infallibility,  identified  the  history  of  Mark  and  the 
direction  of  James.2 

The  effect,  therefore,  of  these  two  identical  rites  must,  be  the 
same.  The  healing  of  Mark  and  the  upraising  of  James  may  be 
reckoned  synonymous  expressions.  The  former,  it  is  clear,  re- 
fers to  recovery  from  disease  and  restitution  to  bodily  health. 
This  exposition  is  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  Bede,  Jonas, 
CEcumenius,  Calmet,  Cajetan,  and  many  other  popish  commen- 
tators. The  statement  of  James,  says  Cajetan,  *  does  neither  in 
word  nor  effect  signify  sacramental  unction,  but  that  ceremony 
instituted  by  our  Lord,  and  applied  by  his  disciples  for  the  re- 
covery of  the  sick.'  The  cardinal,  like  Bede,  Jonas,  CEcume- 
nius, and  Calmet,  delivered  the  plain  meaning  of  the  passage, 
which  will  approve  itself  to  every  unprejudiced  mind.3  Let  the 
Romish  priest,  then,  in  this  way,  cure  the  patient,  and  the  Pro- 
testant has  no  objection.  Let  him  accomplish  the  original 
design  of  the  scriptural  institution,  and  in  this  convincing  man- 
ner, shew  his  power  and  authority.  Let  him  free  the  sick  from 
the  pains  of  the  fever,  the  dropsy,  the  consumption,  or  any  other 

1  Estius,  2.  1114.     Kit.  Rum.  90.     James  v.  14,  15. 

3  Hoc  et  Apostolis  fecisse  in  evangelic  legimus.  Beda,  5.  693.  Jonas,  iii.  14. 
Dachery,  1.  316. 

Tout'o  ot  Artotft'oJun  srtotovv.  CEcumen.  in  loc.  Ex  hoc  patet,  quod  unctio  ex- 
trema  fuit  in^tituta  a  Christo.  Lyra  in  Mark  vi.  13. 

Cretan  sentient  que  ce  passage  ne  regarde  que  1'onction  miraculeuse,  dont  lea 
Apotres  se  servoient  pour  la  guerison  des  malades.  Luc  et  Maldonat  le  soutie- 
nent.  Calmet,  19.  49.  Maldonat,  754. 

Hoc  relictum  erat  ex  pra-cepto  evaugelico.  Erasmus,  6.  1037  Sacramentum 
extremae  unctionis  fundatur  in  Scripturis  Marci  6.  Arsdekin,  1.  245.  Bin.  9.  197, 
619.  Crabb.  3.  746,  855.  Cat.  Triden.  167. 

3  Nee  in  verbis  nee  in  effectu,  verba  haec  loquuntur  de  sacramentali  nnctione 
extreme  unctionis,  sed  magis  de  uuctione  quam  instituit  Dominus  Jesusadiscipnlis 
exercendam  in  regrotis.  Cajet.  in  loco.  Faber,  2.  257.  Beda,  5.  693.  Jonas,  iii. 
14.  Dachery,  1.316. 

On  voit  le  meme  sentiment  dans  (Ecumeraus.     Calm.  Comm.  24.  78. 

Caietanus  negat  absolute  hoc  loco,  Jacobum  loqui  de  sacrameuto  extrema 
anctionis.  Faber,  2.  257. 


448  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

of  the  ills  that  attack  frail  fallen  man  ;  and  he  will,  by  the 
triumphs  of  his  art  or  his  faith,  disarm  all  opposition.  He  may 
then  claim  credit  for  his  commission.  But  the  constant  applica- 
tion of  a  sign,  which  is  never  attended  with  the  proper  or 
primitive  signification,  only  renders  its  author  ridiculous.  The 
continuation  of  the  means,  when  the  end  cannot  be  effected, 
merely  exposes  the  vain  pretender,  as  well  as  his  credulous 
dupes,  to  merited  contempt. 

This  healing  of  the  diseased,  like  other  miraculous  powers 
granted  for  promoting  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  was 
extraordinary  and  temporary.  This,  resembling  other  miracles, 
scarcely  survived  the  apostolic  age.  The  oil,  in  this  respect, 
was  similar  to  the  water  of  Bethesda.  This  pool,  when  the 
descending  angel  troubled  its  water,  cured  the  diseased  who 
immediately  bathed  in  its  healing  wave.  But  this  effect  was 
miraculous  and  transitory.  The  efficacy  was  not  native  or 
inherent,  but  supernatural  and  communicated,  and  ceased  on 
the  cessation  of  the  angelic  visits.  Bethesda,  at  the  present 
day,  is  as  cureless  as  any  other  pool.  The  effect  of  unction, 
in  like  manner,  was  preternatural  and  transient.  Its  application, 
accompanied  with  prayer,  can,  at  the  present  day,  effect  no 
recovery.  The  use  of  unction  and  the  use  of  Bethesda,  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  are  equally  silly.  The  patient,  who  should 
seek'  to  expel  disorder  in  the  pool  of  the  holy  city,  would  only 
meet  with  a  laugh  from  the  passing  spectator.  His  simplicity 
might  excite  a  smile,  but  his  folly  would  convey  no  health  :  and 
the  application  of  oil  to  the  sick,  whatever  the  deceiving  and 
deceived  may  fancy,  is  equally  ridiculous  and  absurd. 

The  remission  of  sin,  mentioned  by  James,  might,  on  a 
superficial  view,  appear  to  militate  against  this  interpretation, 
which  limits  the  effect  of  the  ancient  ceremony  to  the  recovery 
of  health.  But  this  difficulty,  on  a  close  inspection,  will  vanish. 
The  sins,  pardoned  through  'the  prayer  of  faith,'  were  such  as 
in  God's  judicial  or  chastening  providence,  were  punished  with 
sickness.  Infirmity,  disease,  and  even  death  were  sometimes 
inflicted  by  the  Creator,  as  a  punishment  or  correction  for  cer- 
tain offences.  This  has  been  granted  and  indeed  proved  by 
Bede,  Jonas,  Lyra,  Estius,  and  Calmet.  God,  as  these  and 
many  other  authors  attached  to  Romanism  have  shown,  often, 
as  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira,  visits  flagrant  trans- 
gression with  disease  and  even  mortality.1 

1  Mnlti  propter  peccata  in  animo  facta,  infirmitate  aut  etiam  morte  plectuntur 
Beda  in  Jacob.  V.  15.     Jonas,  III.  14.     Dachery,  1.  316. 

Multi  propter  peccata  etiam  corporis  plectuntnr  morte.     Ananias   et  Sapphira 

Juniti  fuerunt  subitanea  morte  pro  peccato.     Lyra,  6.  52,  217.  in  Corin.   xi.  et 
acob  v. 

Plurimum  causa?  morborum  sint  peccata.     Estius,  2.  1145. 
Souvent  Dieu  puuissoit  lea  peches  par  des  maladies.     Culm.  Com  24.  81. 


VARIATION  BETWEEN  SCRIPTURAL  AND  POPISH  UNCTION.    449 

The  fact,  which  these  authors  have  stated,  was  exemplified 
and  evidenced  in  the  Corinthians,  with  respect  to  whom,  as 
depicted  by  Paul,  many  were  weak  and  sickly,  and  many 
slept.  Our  Lord,  therefore,  in  allusion  to  this  truth,  said  to 
the  man  whom  he  healed  of  the  palsy,  "  thy  sins  be  forgiven 
thee."  He  also  admonished  the  man  whom  he  cured  of  an 
infirmity  at  Bethesda,  to  "  sin  no  more,"  for  fear  of  a  severer 
sentence.  These  instances  show  the  connexion  in  some  cases, 
between  trangression  and  disorder,  as  well  as  between  remis 
sion  and  recovery. 

James,  had  he  meant  iniquity  in  general,  need  not  have  used 
the  supposition,  'if  he  have  committed  sins.'  All,  in  this 
respect,  are  guilty.  But  only  some  were  visited  with  a  par- 
ticular malady,  on  account  of  a  particular  crime.  He  declared, 
in  the  expressive  language  of  Estius,  that  *  the  cause,  which 
was  iniquity,  would  be  removed,  that  the  effect,  which  was 
disease,  might  cease.'1  The  indisposition  and  the  punishment 
had  the  relation  of  cause  and  effect,  and  the  one  was  remitted 
for  the  removal  of  the  other.  All  this,  however,  shows  that 
the  institution  was  intended  for  lengthening  the  days  of  the 
living,  and  not,  as  it  has  been  falsely  called,  a  sacrament  de- 
signed for  the  use  of  the  dying. 

Romanism  is  here  guilty  of  another  variation  and  perversion. 
The  inspired  penman  ascribes  the  recovery  of  health  and  the 
remission  of  sin  to  "  the  prayer  of  faith."  But  these  effects, 
the  popish  theologians  attribute  to  the  application  of  the  oint- 
ment. The  prayers,  says  Fleury,  may,  in  case  of  necessity, 
be  omitted,  and  the  unction  alone  used.  The  moderns  depend, 
for  the  effect,  on  the  unguent  plastered  on  the  patient  in  the 
form  of  a  cross.  The  ancients  relied  on  '  the  prayer  of  faith,' 
offered  with  devotion  for  the  recovery  of  the  afflicted  and  the 
pardon  of  sin. 

This  explanation  of  the  Apostolic  injunction  is  open  only  to 
one  objection.  None  of  the  primitive  Christians,  say  Faber 
and  Bellarmine,  need,  on  this  supposition,  have  been  subject  to 
mortality.  The  unction  and  accompanying  prayer  of  the 
elders  would  have  saved  all  from  death.  This  argument,  on  a 
slight  view,  is  specious.  But  its  plausibility,  on  a  closer 
sxamination,  will  totally  disappear.  The  objection,  if  it  have 
any  weight,  presses  as  hard  on  popery  as  on  protestantism. 

The  Romish  as  well  as  the  Reformed  must  admit  the  exist- 
ence of  the  healing  gifts  among  the  early  Christians.  Our 
Lord  cured  the  sick,  and  even  raised  the  dead.  His  apostles 
anointed  and  healed  many.  Paul,  addressing  the  Corinthians, 
mentions  "  the  gifts  of  healing,"  communicated  to  the  pristine 

1  Causa  remota  morbus  cesset.     Estius,  2.  1145. 

29 


450  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

Christians,  whose  possession  of  this  extraordinary  power, 
infidelity  only  would  venture  to  deny.  A  belief  of  this  fact, 
whatever  may  be  the  conclusion,  forms,  in  this  case,  an  article 
in  the  objector's  faith,  as  well  as  in  that  of  his  adversary. 

But  the  conclusion  from  this  fact  is  not,  that  all  the  sick 
recovered.  This  power  of  restoring  to  health  could  not,  at  all 
times,  be  exercised,  even  by  those  on  whom  it  had  been 
bestowed.  The  prophet  could  not  always  prophesy ;  nor 
could  the  supernatural  gift  of  healing  always  expel  disorder  or 
prevent  death.  The  apostles  themselves  were  enabled  to  com- 
mand this  miraculous  power  only  on  some  occasions.  Paul 
healed  the  father  of  Publius  and  others  who  had  diseases  in 
the  island  of  Melita ;  but  left  Trophimus,  his  friend,  sick  al 
Melitum.  He  also  advised  Timothy  to  use  wine,  as  an  ordi- 
nary means,  and  an  approved  medicine  for  his  infirmity.  This 
supernatural  endowment,  therefore,  was  occasional,  and 
brought  into  operation  only  by  the  permission  and  assistance 
of  God.  The  extraordinary  power,  sometimes  inactive,  had 
to  be  called  into  energy  by  the  Divine  impulse.1 

This  may  be  applied  to  the  pastors  mentioned  by  James. 
These  could  wield  the  healing  power  only  when  actuated  by 
the  Spirit  of  God.  Their  petition,  in  consequence,  is  styled 
'the  prayer  of  faith,'  because  it  inspired  assurance  of  success. 
James,  accordingly,  in  the  English  version,  denominates  the 
prayer  effectual,  which,  according  to  the  original,  should  be 
translated  inwrought  or  inspired.  This  miracle-working  faith 
is  the  kind,  which,  says  Jesus  and  Paul,  is  capable  of  removing 
mountains,  and  enabled  its  possessor  to  expel  indisposition,  and 
convey  health  to  the  subjects  of  sickness  and  infirmity. 

This  objection,  inconsistent  with  the  objector's  own  belief, 
leooils  also,  with  tremendous  destruction,  on  his  own  acknowl- 
edged system.  The  modern  ceremony  would,  even  on  popish 
principles,  as  certainly  save  every  soul,  as  the  ancient  institu- 
tion would  have  healed  every  body.  All,  on  the  former  suppo- 
sition, would  as  surely  be  transmitted  to  heaven,  as  on  the  latter 
have,  according  to  the  objection,  been  restored  to  fcealth.  The 
one  would  as  unquestionably  deliver  from  spiritual  as  the  other 
from  temporal  death.  The  modern  unction,  according  to  the 
council  of  Trent,  pardons  remaining  and  unexpiated  sins, 
which,  in  the  interpretation  of  Estius  and  Calmet,  comprehend 
both  venial  and  mortal  offences :  and,  at  the  same  time,  con- 
veys grace  and  strength,  and  heals  all  weakness  and  propensity 
to  transgress.  This  freedom  from  sin  and  attainment  ot  purity 
would  inevitably  transfer  all  the  dying,  who  receive  the  greasy 

1  La  guerison  de  malades  par  les  onctions  etoit  une  cftoso  accidentelle  et  d'un 
usage  passager.  Calmet,  24.  81. 


SCRIPTURAL   END   OF    ANOINTING   THE    SICK.  451 

application,  to  happiness,  and  reserve  for  a  worse  situation,  only 
the  protestant  who  contemns  the  unctuous  plaster,  and  the  child, 
the  idiot,  and  the  executed  criminal,  who  are  incapable  of 
becoming  candidates  for  this  holy  sacrament.1 

The  modern  ointment,  therefore,  must,  in  a  great  measure, 
unpeople  purgatory.  The  heretic,  who  despises  this  unguent, 
must  march,  not  to  the  middle  place,  but  to  a  worse  country. 
The  Romish  unction,  if,  according  to  the  popish  theology,  it 
remit  venial  and  mortal  sins,  heal  infirmity,  impart  strength,  and 
fortify  the  soul  against  temptation,  will  certainly  transfer 
the  recipient  '  with  safety,  to  the  port  of  eternal  happiness.' 
Heaven  and  hell,  therefore,  being,  in  this  manner,  forestalled 
by  the  use  or  rejection  of  this  sacramental  ointment,  the  prince 
of  the  intermediate  district,  if  it  have  any,  must  want  subjects,  or 
accept  of  youths,  madmen,  or  sentenced  offenders.2  The  inter- 
mediate empire,  by  these  means,  will  be  reduced  to  a  waste. 
Its  plains  will  become  a  wilderness,  and  its  palaces  and  cities 
fall  into  ruin. 

Extreme  unction  is  a  variation  from  tradition,  as  well  as  from 
revelation.  The  ceremony  is  destitute  of  written  and  un- 
written authority,  and  was  unknown  both  to  the  apostles  and 
fathers  of  antiquity.  Fleury,  Ward,  Sclater,  Mumford,  and 
Challenor,  in  consequence,  forbear,  on  this  topic,  to  make  any 
quotations  from  the  record  of  early  Christianity.  The  omission, 
indeed,  was  dictated  by  prudence.  Antiquity  could  afford  no 
authority  for  such  an  innovation,  but  which,  by  its  impertinence, 
would  have  disgraced,  if  possible,  even  the  popish  system  of 
superstition  and  absurdity.  Bellarmine  endeavours  to  excuse 
the  ancients  for  omitting  the  history  of  this  sacrament  in  their 
works,  by  alleging  their  want  of  occasion.  The  cardinal,  for 
once,  was  right.  The  early  Christian  authors  had  no  opportu- 
nity of  discussing  a  non-entity. 

The  Rhemists  admit  that  the  fathers  of  the  first  four  centu- 
ries make  no  mention  of  this  institution.  These  annotators 
indeed  refer  to  Origen,  who  flourished  in  the  third  century  ; 
but,  at  the  same,  insist  not  on  his  testimony,  clearly  from  a 
consciousness  of  its  utter  inadequacy.  The  concession,  in 
reality,  is  an  abandonment  of  the  cause  so  far  as  concerns  this 
source  of  evidence.  Four  hundred  revolving  years  ran  their 
ample  round,  and  left  no  trace  of  this  sacrament.  The  aposto- 
lic men,  Clemens,  Hermas,  Barnabas,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp 
lived,  and  wrote,  and  departed,  without  once  mentioning  the 
sacrament  of  the  dying.  The  successors  of  the  apostolic  men, 

1  Aquinas,  3.  467.     Cat.  Trid.  166.  Kit.  Rom.  91.     Estius,  2.  1145.     Calmet 

2  Challenor,  113.     Fleury,  246. 

29* 


452  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

such  as  Justin,  Trenaeus,  Clemens,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Athena- 
goras,  Tatian,  Epiphanius,  and  the  apostolic  constitutions  are, 
on  this  theme,  equally  silent  and  disobliging.  The  pretended 
Dionysius,  who  has  left  circumstantial  details  on  similar  topics, 
has,  says  Aquinas,  made  no  mention  of  extreme  unction.1 
These  authors  have  emblazoned  the  other  sacraments  in  their 
works,  and  drawn  minute  delineations  of  baptism  and  the 
communion.  These  topics  meet  the  reader's  eye  in  nearly 
every  page  of  their  literary  productions.  But  extreme  unction, 
wonderful  to  tell,  is  never  mentioned.  This  ceremony,  which, 
in  modern  days,  remits  sin  and  strengthens  the  soul  of  the 
dying,  forms  no  part  of  either  the  light  or  shade  of  the  picture 
sketched  by  the  pen  of  antiquity.  This  was  a  woful  and  vex- 
atious omission  in  the  good  fathers,  and  has  put  many  moderns 
to  a  sad  puzzle. 

The  Christian  men  and  women  of  old,  such  as  Constantine, 
Helen,  Anthony,  Basil,  Chrysostom,  Monica,  and  Augustine, 
whose  death-bed  biography  has  been  transmitted  to  the  present 
day,  seem,  never  to  have  been  anointed.  Their  biographers 
never  so  much  as  mention  the  sacrament  of  the  dying.  All 
these,  it  is  to  be  feared,  departed  without  the  application  of  the 
blessed  oil.  The  holy  men  and  women,  in  all  probability,  con- 
trived getting  to  heaven  without  being  greased  for  the  journey. 
But  the  modern  saints  and  sinners  of  Romanism  are  prepared 
for  heaven  or  purgatory  by  consecrated  oil.  The  death  of 
many,  in  latter  days,  has  been  recorded  by  Surius  and  Butler  : 
and  these,  on  their  death-bed,  were  always  complimented  with 
a  plaster  of  blessed  ointment.  The  modern  saints  make  their 
exit  from  time  and  their  entrance  into  eternity,  ornamented  in 
seven  different  places,  with  the  cross-streaks  of  the  oily  figures, 
formed  by  the  graceful  motion  of  the  sacerdotal  thumb. 

The  friends  of  this  ceremony  have  endeavoured  to  prop  the 
baseless  fabric  by  historical  testimony,  extracted  from  the 
annals  of  the  fifth  and  following  centuries.  All  this  evidence, 
worthy  of  any  attention,  is  taken  from.  Innocent,  Bede,  and  the 
councils  of  Chalons  and  Worms. 

Pope  Innocent,  who  flourished  so  late  as  the  fifth  century,  is 
their  first  witness.  Decentius,  bishop  of  Eugubium  in  Italy, 
had  occasion,  on  this  subject,  to  consult  the  pontiff,  who  re- 
turned the  following  answer.  *  The  diseased  faithful,  to  whom 
James  refers,  may  be  anointed  with  the  consecrated  oil  of 
chrism.  This  ointment  may  be  used  not  only  by  priests,  but 
also  by  all  Christians,  who  may  anoint  not  only  themselves, 

1  Dionysius  non  facit  aliquam  mentionem  de  extrema  unctione.  Aquinas,  IIL 
29.  I.  p.  462. 

" 


TRADITIONAL    EVIDENCE    FOR    EXTREME    UNCTION.        453 

out  also  their  friends.  But  the  chrism  may  not  be  poured  on 
penitents,  for  it  is  a  kind  of  sacrament.'1 

The  utter  ignorance  of  Decentius  and  Innocent,  on  this  sub- 
ject, irrefragably  shows  the  non-existence  of  extreme  unction  in 
the  fifth  century.  Decentius,  a  dignified  clergyman  of  Italy, 
knew  so  little  of  the  ceremony,  that  he  could  not,  without  in- 
struction, administer  the  pretended  sacrament  of  the  dying. 
He  applied  in  his  difficulty,  to  the  Pope,  the  father  and  teacher 
of  all  Christians  :  and  the  pontiff  who  has  been  eulogized  for 
genius  and  learning  by  Jerome,  Augustine,  Chrysostom,  and 
Bellarmine,  knew  no  more  of  it,  except  in  his  own  conceit,  than 
the  bishop.  He  called  the  rite  l  a  KIND  of  sacrament.'  This 
appellation  would  have  called  down  on  his  holiness  the  anathe- 
mas of  the  Trentine  council,  that  pronounced  this  observance 
'  a  true  and  proper  sacrament.'  His  infallibility,  besides,  mis- 
took the  administrator  and  the  sign  of  this  'kind  of  sacrament.' 
Its  minister,  in  his  infallibility's  hands,  was  not  only  a  priest, 
but  every  Christian,  both  for  himself  and  his  friends.  The  lay- 
man, however,  who,  in  modern  times,  should  make  the  attempt, 
would,  says  Faber, '  not  only  sin,  but  effect  nothing.'  The  sign, 
according  to  his  holiness,  was  chrism,  which,  in  modern  days, 
is  utterly  unfit  for  this  use.  This  unction,  performed  now  with 
chrism,  is  invalid,  and  the  whole  process,  in  this  case,  must, 
says  the  council  of  Milan,  be  repeated  with  the  proper  element. 
His  infallibility's  *  kind  of  sacrament,'  administered  according  to 
his  pontifical  directions,  would,  in  modern  times,  be  perfectly 
useless.  Innocent  and  Decentius,  the  pontiff  and  the  bishop, 
were,  in  reality,  strangers  to  one  of  the  seven  sacraments,  and 
would  have  needed  a  fugleman  to  show  the  motion  of  his 
spiritual  exercise.  Both  would  have  required  a  modern  priest 
to  drill  these  two  raw  recruits,  and  teach  them  the  manoeuvres 
of  sacerdotal  duty  and  the  use  of  ecclesiastical  arms.2 

Bede's  testimony,  more  than  300  years  later,  is  similar  to 
Innocent's.  The  sick,  says  the  English  monk,  '  is,  according  to 
ecclesiastical  use,  to  be  anointed  with  consecrated  oil  and  healed. 
This  is  lawful,  not  only  for  the  pastors,  but  also,  as  Innocent 
hath  declared,  for  all  Christians,  both  for  themselves  and  their 
friends.'3  This  only  shows  that  the  unction  of  the  sick  remained 
in  the  same  state  in  the  eighth  century  as  in  the  fifth,  and  that 

1  De  fidelibus  aegrotantibus  accipi  vel  intelligi  debere,  qui  sancto  oleo  chrismatii 
perungi  possunt.  Non  solum  sacerdotibus,  sed  omnibus  uti  Christianis  licet  in  eu& 
et  suorum  necessitate  inungendo.  Poenitentibus  illud  fimdi  non  potest,  quia  genus 
est  sacramenti.  Carranza,  187.  Labb.  3.  6.  Jonas  iii.  14.  C'  est  une  espece  d» 
sacrement.  Bruys,  1.  175. 

3  Si  laicus  attentet,  non  solum  peccat,  sed  nihil  facit.  Faber,  2.  254.  Labb. 
18.  550.  et  21.  368.  Bin.  8.  866.  et  9.  619.  Crabb.  3.  506. 

3  Infirmi  oleo  consecrato  ungantur  a  presbyteris,  et,  oratione  conimilitante, 
sanetur,  etc.  Beda,  5.  693. 


464  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

the  unction  of  Romanism  was  as  little  known  in  the  days  of 
Bede  as  of  Innocent,  and  in  England  as  in  Italy.  Bede  and 
Innocent  would  have  needed  some  modern  adept  in  superstition 
to  teach  them  the  proper  movements  and  evolutions  in  applying 
the  sacramental  plaster.  Bede,  besides,  represents  the  recovery 
of  health  as  the  end  or  effect  of  this  ceremony :  and  this  shows 
that  the  unction  of  the  sick,  in  the  English  monk's  time,  was 
still  used  for  the  original  design,  and  referred,  not  to  the  soul, 
but  to  the  body. 

The  provincial  synod  of  Chalons'  testimony  has  been  added 
to  that  of  Innocent  and  Bede.  This  assembly  met  in  813,  and 
in  its  forty-eighth  canon  enjoined  the  unction  of  the  sick  with 
oil  blessed  by  the  bishop.  '  This  kind  of  medicine,'  said  the 
council,  'is  not  to  be  despised,  which  heals  the  infirmity  of 
soul  and  body.'1  This  canon  only  shows  that  the  unction  of 
the  sick  was  in  the  ninth  century,  still  confined  to  its  primevair 
intention.  The  sign  is  called  medicine,  and  the  effect  is 
spiritual  and  corporeal  health.  The  body,  by  its  application, 
recovered  its  strength,  and  the  soul  obtained  pardon  of  the  sin 
which  occasioned  the  malady.  The  convenient  modern  con- 
dition of  this  rite  being  beneficial  to  the  body,  when  pleasing 
to  God  and  good  for  the  patient,  was  unknown  in  the  ninth 
century.  Recovery  of  health,  according  to  this  synod,  attend- 
ed the  unction  as  uniformly  as  the  remission  of  crime.  The 
only  addition  which  the  ceremony,  in  the  long  lapse  of  eight 
hundred  years,  seems  to  have  received  from  the  spirit  of  su- 
perstition, consisted  in  the  episcopal  consecration  of  the  oint- 
ment, and  its  indiscriminate  application  to  the  infirm.  The 
council  also  erred  in  continuing  an  extraordinary  and  temporary 
observance,  when  the  age  of  miracles  had  passed,  and  when 
its  administration  had  ceased  to  convey  its  original  and  proper 
effect. 

The  provincial  council  of  Worms  has  been  added  to  that  of 
Chalons,  as  evidence  of  this  superstition.  But  this  assembly 
affords  no  additional  testimony :  its  seventy-second  cancn 
merely  embodied  Pope  Innocent's  reply  to  Bishop  Decentius. 
The  fathers  of  Worms  only  adopted  and  repeated  his  infalli- 
bility's decision  without  preface  or  explanation.  The  subject 
was  no  better  known,  and  the  future  sacrament  had  made  no 
farther  progress  than  450  years  before,  in  the  fifth  century. 
The  unction  still  remained  a  kind  of  sacrament.  Hundreds 
of  years  had  elapsed  from  the  commencement  of  Christianity, 
and  still  the  sacrament  was  misunderstood.  Decentius,  Inno- 
cent, and  Bede,  as  well  as  the  councils  of  Chalons  and  Worms, 

1  Non  est  parvipendenda  hujuscemodi  medicina,  qua?  animae  corporisque  medetur 
languoribus.  Bin.  6.  222.  Crabb.  2.  628.  Labb.  9.  370- 


HISTORY    OF    EXTREME    UNCTION.  455 

were  ignorant  of  the  administrator,  the  sign,  and  the  end  of 
the  ceremony,  which  the  Trentine  fathers  of  infallible  memory, 
pronounced  a  true  and  proper  sacrament,  insinuated  by  Mark, 
published  by  James,  and  instituted  by  Emmanuel. 

The  history  of  this  innovation  is  easily  traced.  Extreme 
unction  in  its  present  form,  was  the  child  of  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury. The  monuments  of  Christian  theology  for  eleven  hun- 
dred years,  mention  no  ceremony,  which  in  its  varied  and 
unmeaning  mummery,  corresponds  with  the  unction  of  Roman- 
ism. The  patrons  of  this  superstition  have  rifled  the  annals 
of  ecclesiastical  history  for  eleven  ages,  and  have  failed  in  the 
discovery  of  either  precept  or  example  for  a  rite,  which,  they 
affirm,  was  practised  as  a  sacrament  in  every  nation  of 
Christendom  since  the  era  of  redemption. 

The  twelfth  century,  of  which  this  filthy  ceremony  is  the 
offspring,  was  the  reign  of  ignorance  and  superstition.  Science 
and  literature  seemed,  in  disgust,  to  fly  from  a  tasteless  and 
degenerated  world.  Philosophy  refused  to  shed  a  single  ray 
on  a  grovelling  race,  who  hated  or  despised  its  light.  Immo- 
rality, as  usual,  kept  pace  with  barbarism.  Moral  and  intel- 
lectual darkness  commingled  their  clouds  around  man,  for  the 
purpose  of  forming  a  night  of  concentrated  horror  and  atrocity. 
The  king  and  the  subject,  the  clergy  and  the  laity,  conspired 
against  all  information  ;  while  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  seemed 
to  withdraw  his  beams  from  a  wicked  and  a  wandering  world. 

Amid  this  intellectual  and  moral  darkness,  the  apostolic  cere- 
mony, noticed  by  Mark  and  James,  degenerated,  by  accumu- 
lated innovations,  into  the  Romish  sacrament.  Superstition, 
from  her  overflowing  fountain,  poured  her  copious  streams, 
which  mingling,  but  not  united  with  the  scriptural  spring, 
formed  the  heterogeneous  and  unsightly  mass.  The  simple 
rite  was  transformed  into  the  clumsy  sacrament.  The  original 
unction,  intended  for  the  recovery  of  health  to  particular 
individuals,  continued,  while  the  gift  of  healing  and  the  power 
of  working  miracles  remained.  But  these,  in  process  of  time, 
ceased,  and  the  weakness  of  man  prompted  many  to  use  the 
external  rite  after  the  miraculous  power  was  suspended.  The 
patient's  health,  not  indeed  by  the  miraculous  application  of 
the  oil,  but  by  the  ordinary  operations  of  Providence,  was 
sometimes  restored:  and  the  recovery,  in  these  cases,  was 
ascribed  to  the  ointment.  But  many,  though  anointed,  died : 
and  the  observance,  in  these  instances,  though  the  body 
suffered,  was  supposed  to  be  beneficial  to  the  soul.  The 
recovery  of  health,  therefore,  was  accounted  conditional,  and 
the  good  of  the  soul  was  reckoned  certain.  Superstition,  from 
day  to  day  and  from  age  to  age,  appended  new  additions  tc 


456  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

the  growing  ceremony.  The  episcopal  consecration  of  the  oil 
its  indiscriminate  application  and  other  innovations,  dictated 
by  the  demon  of  superstition,  were  superinduced  on  the  pristine 
institution.  The  filthy  progeny  of  ignorance  and  superstition 
came,  at  last,  to  maturity.  Bernard,  Victor,  and  Lombard,  in 
the  twelfth  century,  speak  of  the  unction  of  the  sick  in  modern 
language,  enlarged  with  the  multiplied  accessions  of  eleven 
hundred  years.  Albert,  Aquinas,  and  other  schoolmen  touched 
the  picture  with  characteristic  subtilty.  These  theological 
projectors  brought  the  S3rstem  to  perfection,  and  exhibited  it  to 
the  world  in  a  finished  form.  The  novelty,  in  1439,  was 
adopted  by  Pope  Eugenius  and  the  Florentine  council,  and 
stamped  with  the  seal  of  their  unqualified  approbation  and 
synodal  infallibility. 

The  subject  came  afterwards  before  the  council  of  Trent. 
But  the  doctors  who  attended  that  assembly  differed,  and 
quibbled,  and  argued,  and  squabbled  on  this,  as  on  every  other 
subject  without  harmony  and  often  without  meaning.1  Each 
maintained  his  own  opinion  with  warmth  and  obstinacy.  The 
Legates,  therefore,  in  forming  the  canons,  omitted  many  of  the 
jarring  opinions  of  the  angry  theologians,  and  inserted  only  those 
in  which  they  agreed.  These,  the  sacred  synod  in  the  four- 
teenth session,  ratified  with  dreadful  anathemas,  discharged  from 
their  spiritual  artillery  against  all  who  should  gainsay.  These 
canons,  therefore,  though  hardly  intelligible,  became,  on  this 
topic  of  theology,  the  professed  standard  of  faith,  and  form  of 
external  conformity  among  the  patrons  of  Romanism.  The 
veering  vane  of  popery,  which  had  shifted  in  ceaseless  varia- 
tion round  all  the  points  of  the  theological  compass,  rusted,  in 
motionless  inflexibility,  during  the  long  sessions  of  the  Trenline 
congress,  and,  on  this,  as  on  every  other  topic  of  divinity,  fixed, 
in  a  great  measure,  the  modern  system  of  superstition. 

1  De  la  etoient  nees  les  contestations,  qui  les  erapechoient  d'etre  tous  bien  unii 
centre  les  Lutheriens.     Paolo,  1.  556.     Du  Pin,  3.  481.     Labb.  20.  102. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


IMAGE-WORSHIP. 

THREE     SYSTEMS — ONE     ALLOWS     THE     USE     OF     IMAGES — THE     SECOND     PATRONIZES 

THEIR     INFERIOR     OR     HONORARY      WORSHIP THE      THIRD      PREFERS      THE      SAMB 

ADORATION    TO    THE    REPRESENTATION    AS     TO     THE     ORIGINAL — IMAGE-WORSHIP     A 

VARIATION    FROM    SCRIPTURAL    AUTHORITY A     VARIATION     FROM     ECCLESIASTICAL 

ANTIQUITY MIRACULOUS     PROOFS ADMISSIONS INTRODUCTION     OF     IMAGES     INTO 

THE    CHURCH — THEIR    WORSHIP ICONOCLASM BYZANTINE   COUNCIL SECOND    NI- 

CENE    COUNCIL WESTERN    SYSTEM CAROLINE  BOOKS — FRANKFORDIAN  COUNCIL 

PARISIAN    COUNCIL EASTERN    VARIATIONS FINAL     ESTABLISHMENT    OF    IDOLATRY 

BY     THEODORA. 

BELLARMINE  and  Juenin  distinguish  the  Popish  systems  on 
image-worship  into  three  classes.1  One  class  recommends  the 
use  of  images,  but  rejects  their  worship.  This  party  allows 
the  superstition  of  Romanism,  but  forbids  its  idolatry.  A 
second  class  patronizes  both  the  use,  and  the  imperfect  or 
inferior  worship  of  these  painted  and  sculptured  representa- 
tions. This  faction  countenances  the  idolatry  as  well  as  the 
superstition.  A  third  class  prefers  the  same  adoration  to  the 
copy  as  to  the  original :  and,  therefore,  with  respect  to  the 
images  of  God  and  his  Son,  are  guilty  of  the  grossest  idolatry. 
The  class  that  permits  the  use  of  painted  forms  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  have  touched  the  subject  with  a  deceitful  pen. 
God  only,  according  to  these  authors,  is  worshipped  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  image,  which  is  not  honoured  for  its  own  sake. 
A  picture  or  statue  is  neither  God,  the  place  of  His  residence, 
the  symbol  of  His  presence,  nor  the  seat  of  His  power.  The 
painted  or  sculptured  representation  possesses  neither  divinity 
nor  power,  and  is  the  object  of  neither  prayer  nor  confidence. 
The  suppliant  prays  not  to,  but,  before  the  effigy,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  fixing  his  thoughts  and  preventing  distraction  of  mind. 
He  offers  no  adoration  to  the  work  of  the  pencil  or  the  chisel, 
as  if  it  were  substituted  for  God.  The  supplication  is  ad- 
dressed not  to  the  material  representation,  but  to  the  person 
represented.  The  likeness,  the  production  of  the  painter  or 
the  statuary,  is  a  mere  memorial  of  the  original,  as  a  portrait  is 

1  Bell,  ii  20      Juenin,  4.  414. 


458  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

of  a  friend.  The  sensible  resemblance,  in  the  one  case, 
awakens  friendship  :  and,  in  the  other,  kindles  devotion,  assists 
the  memory,  and  communicates  instruction.  The  copy  raises 
the  soul,  in  holy  gratitude  and  piety,  to  the  great  exemplar,  as 
time,  painted  with  its  hour-glass,  reminds  the  spectator  of  its 
motion  and  fleetness.1 

Pictures,  in  this  system,  are  the  books  of  the  unlearned, 
which,  in  the  unlettered  mind,  awaken  trains  of  holy  thought 
and  meditation.  The  effigy  or  painting,  which,  in  this  manner, 
is  the  book  of  the  illiterate,  is  also  the  ornament  of  the  temple. 
These  partizans  of  modern  refinement  seldom  use  the  term 
worship  or  adoration,  but  honour,  esteem,  homage,  respect,  or 
veneration.  These  allow  no  more  respect  for  the  material 
form,  than  a  Jew  would  feel  for  the  ark,  or  the  altar,  or  a 
Christian  for  the  Bible  or  the  sacramental  elements.2 

Such,  on  this  topic,  is  the  refined  system  of  many,  and  among 
the  rest,  of  Thomassin,  Bossuet,  Alexander,  Juenin,  Du  Pin, 
Gother,  Challenor,  and  Lanciano.  Statements  of  this  kind  are 
very  convenient  in  the  kingdoms  of  Protestantism  and  safety  ; 
but  the  authors  were  prudent  in  publishing  their  opinions  at  a 
respectful  distance  from  Spain,  Portugal,  Goa,  and  the  inqui- 
sition. 

The  second  class  honour  images  with  an  inferior  or  imperfect 
worship.  These,  however,  offer  no  L atria  or  supreme  adora- 
tion to  the  pencilled  resemblance.  This  homage,  they  ascribe 
only  to  the  Almighty.  But  the  copy,  they  contend,  is  entitled 
to  veneration,  on  account  of  its  dedication  and  similarity  to  the 
prototype.  This  worship,  Bellarmine  calls  imperfect,  and 
Juenin  internal  or  absolute.  This  faction  include  a  numerous 
party  in  the  Romish  communion,  among  whom  are  Bellarmine, 
Baronius,  Estius,  Godeau,  and  Spondanus.8 

This  class,  Bellarmine  has  shewn,  maintain  the  same  system 
as  the  second  Nicene  council.  The  Niceans  represented  images 
as  holy,  communicating  holiness,  and  entitled  to  the  same  vene- 
ration as  the  gospels.  The  infallible  synod  also  condemned 
those  who  used  pictures  only  for  assisting  the  memory,  and  not 
for  adoration.4 

The  Trentine  professed  to  follow  the  Nicene  council.  The 
former,  however,  seems  on  this  subject  to  have  modified,  if  not 
contradicted  the  latter.  The  Niceans  characterized  images  as 

1  Non  quod   credatur  inesse  aliqua  Divinitas  vel  virtus,   vel   quod  ab   eis  sit 
aliquid  petendum,  vel  quod  fiducia  in  imaginibus  sit  figenda.     Labb.  20.  171. 

Bell.  II.  20.  Juenin,  4.  415.  Gother,  c.  1.  Boss.  $.  4.  Fleury,  197.  Chal- 
Ion.  c.  27. 

2  Godeau,  5.  13.     Crabb.  3.  748.     Personne  n'adore  le  bois.     On  adore  Dieu,  et 
en  un  certain  sens,  on  n'adore  que  lui  seul.     Bossuet,  Op.  1.  445,  448 

3  Bell.  II.  20,  25.     Godeau,  5.  512.     Labb.  8.  700. 
*  Du  Pin,  2.  42.     Bell.  II.  21.     Bin.  5.  530. 


DIFFERENT     SYSTEMS     OF    IMAGE    WORSHIP.  459 

holy,  while  the  Trentine  accounted  these  painted  and  sculp- 
tured forms  void  of  any  virtue.  The  worship  and  adoration 
of  the  Nicene  assembly  are,  in  the  canons  of  Trent,  reduced  to 
honour  and  veneration.  The  Latin  synod,  which  met  after  the 
reformation,  had,  in  some  measure,  to  follow  the  advanced 
state  ofliterature  and  philosophy,  and  to  present  a  more  rational 
view  of  the  subject  than  the  Grecian  convention,  which  issued 
its  decisions  in  an  age  of  barbarism  and  superstition. 

The  third  class  prefer  the  same  adoration  to  the  representa- 
tion as  to  the  represented.  The  copy,  taken  in  connexion  with 
the  pattern,  is,  according  to  these  authors,  entitled  to  equal 
veneration,  as  the  royal  robe,  which  adorns  a  king,  shares  the 
honours  of  majesty.  The  likeness  of  God  or  his  Son,  in  mental 
conjunction  with  the  original,  is  therefore  the  object  of  L atria 
or  divine  adoration.  The  effigy  of  Lady  Mary  is  to  receive 
Hyperdulia  or  intermediate  worship  ;  while  the  statue  of  the 
saint  or  the  martyr  can  claim  only  Dulia  or  inferior  honour 
and  veneration.  This  honour,  however,  is  only  relative. 
Bellarmine,  entangled  in  the  intricacy  and  absurdity  of  his 
statements  on  this  topic,  extricates  himself  by  hair-breadth  and 
unintelligible  distinctions.  This  is  the  system  of  Aquinas, 
Cajetan,  Bonaventure,  Antoninus,  Turrecrema,  Turrian, 
Vasquez,  and  the  schoolmen.1 

The  Romish  communion,  in  general,  ascribes  supreme  wor- 
ship to  the  cross.  Aquinas,  with  the  utmost  perspicuity  and 
without  any  equivocation,  attributes  L  atria  or  sovereign  wor- 
ship to  the  cross  as  well  as  to  our  Lord's  image.  According  to 
the  Angelic  doctor,  *  the  cross  is  to  be  worshipped  with  L  atria, 
which  is  also  to  be  addressed  to  Jesus  and  his  image.'2  The 
schoolmen,  in  general,  supported  the  same  system,  and  main- 
tained that  '  Latrian  adoration  is  due  to  the  holy  cross  and  to 
the  image  of  Irnmanuel.' N 

Similar  idolatry  is  encouraged  in  the  Roman  pontifical,  mis- 
sal, breviary,  and  processional.  The  Pontifical  expressly  de- 
clares that  '  Latria  is  due  to  the  cross.'  Divine  worship,  in 
this  manner,  is  addressed  to  a  wooden  deity.  The  missal, 
published  by  the  authority  of  Pius,  Clement,  and  Urban,  enjoins, 
'  The  clergy  and  laity  on  bended  knees  to  adore  the  cross. 
The  whole  choir,  in  the  mean  time,  sing,  *  Thy  cross,  O  Lord, 
we  adore ;  for  by  the  wood  of  the  cross,  the  whole  world  is 
filled  with  joy.'  The  breviary,  revised  and  corrected  also  by 
pontifical  authority,  contains  the  following  hymns  and  petitions. 

1  Bell.  IT.  20.     Juenin,  4.  414.     Aquin.  iii.  25.  IV.  P.  140. 

Eadera  adoratione,  qua  adoratur  prototApum,  adorandum  esse  imaginem  ejusi 
et  sic  imago  Christi  et  Dei  adoranda  est  latriA.  Faber,  1.  121.  Dens,  5.  38,  45. 

2  Saint  Thomas  attribue  a  la  Croix,  le  culte  de  Latria,  qui  est  le  culte  supreme. 
Bossuet,  Oeuvres,  1.  448. 


460  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

supplicating  the  cross  for  righteousness,  pardon,  and  salvation. 
1  Hail,  O  cross,  our  only  hope  :  increase  righteousness  to  the 
pious  and  bestow  pardon  on  the  guilty.  Save  the  present 
assembly,  met  this  day  for  thy  praise.  O  venerable  cross,  that 
has  procured  salvation  for  the  wretched.  Thy  cross,  O  Lord, 
we  adore,  and  we  commemorate  thy  glorious  passion.'  Similar 
prayers  are  found  in  the  processional,  edited  by  Urban,  Inno- 
cent, Alexander,  and  Clement :  and  stronger  language  of 
adoration  could  not  be  addressed  to  God.1  This  homage  and 
these  requests,  offered  to  the  wood  and  accompanied  with  all 
the  mummery  of  bowing,  kissing,  kneeling,  lighting,  incensing, 
arid  prostration,  are  nothing  less  than  bare-faced  idolatry, 
exhibited  in  noon-day  without  a  shadow  to  screen  its  nakedness 
or  deformity. 

Bossuet  indeed  would  excuse  the  impiety,  by  representing 
the  cross,  though  made  of  wood  and  so  denominated,  as  a 
poetical  expression  or  figurative  language  for  Immanuel,  who 
suffered  crucifixion.  The  adoration,  therefore,  on  the  occasion, 
is,  it  would  appear,  only  metaphorical  idolatry.  This,  no  doubt, 
was  a  happy  discovery.  The  learned  bishop,  by  his  superior 
discernment,  might  see  how  lifeless  timber  could,  by  a  trope, 
be  transubstantiated  into  the  living  Saviour.  He  might  plaster 
his  conscience  and  display  his  ingenuity,  by  such*evasion  or 
subterfuge.  But  the  unlettered  worshipper  might  have  less 
refinement,  and  possess  less  acquaintance  with  figures  of  speech 
and  license  of  poetry.  The  metaphor  might,  to  the  people,  be 
hard  of  digestion.  A  plain  man  might,  in  his  simplicity,  think 
that  wood,  though  in  the  form  of  a  cross,  is  wood,  and  not 
Jehovah. 

The  many  kinds  of  worship,  ascribed  to  images  by  Romish 
doctors,  shew  their  disagreement,  shuffling,  and  difficulty,  as 
well  as  the  absurdity  of  their  system.  Latria,  Dulia,  Hyper- 
dulia,  sovereign,  supreme,  divine,  subordinate,  inferior,  impro- 
per, relative,  outward,  reductive,  analogical,  accidental,  imper- 
fect and  honorary  worship,  all  these  epithets  and  distinctions 
and  many  more,  have  been  used  by  Romish  theologians,  to 

1  Crux  Christ!  est  adoranda  adorations  Latriae.  Aquin.  III.  25.  iv.  Eadem  reve* 
rentia  exhibeatur  imagini  Christi  et  ipsi  Christo ;  ejus  imago  sit  adoratione  latrias 
adorauda.  Aquinas.  III.  Q.  25.  art.  III.  P.  140. 

Scholasticos  illos,  qui  Christi  imaging  atque  sanctissimae  cruci  Latriae  cultum 
tribuendum  esse.  Spon.  787.  VII. 

Crux  Legati  Apostolici  erit  ad  dextram,  quia  Latria  illi  debetur.     Pon.  Rom.  205 
Clerici  et  laici,  ter  genibus  flexis  crucem  adorant.     Proper  lignum,  gaudium  in 
miiverso  mundo.     Miss.  Rom.  157.  158. 

O  Crux,  ave  spes  unica, 
Auge  piis  justitiam, 
Reisque  dona  veniam. 

Salve  praesentem  catervani,  In  tuis  hodie  laudibus  congregatem.  O  crux  vene- 
rabilis  quae  salutem  attulisti  miseris.  Brev.  Rom.  982,  983.  Process.  Rom.  306. 


IMAGE    WORSHIP    A    VARIATION    FROM    SCRIPTURE.        461 

evade  difficulty  or  explain  nonsense.  These,  they  wield  with 
equal  resolution  and  fury  against  heretics  and  against  each 
other.  The  popish  advocate  finds  himself  opposed  to  the 
ancients,  and  exposed  to  their  heaviest  artillery.  But  he  escapes 
by  a  distinction.  His  system  differs  from  some  Pope  or  council. 
But  all  is  reconciled  by  the  mediation  of  some  lucky  epithet  or 
some  useful  discrimination :  and  these  are  numerous  and  ready 
on  every  occasion  of  difficulty. 

Such,  on  this  topic,  is  the  unity  of  Romanism.  Its  councils 
and  doctors,  like  the  workmen  of  Babel  at  the  confusion  of 
speech,  are  unintelligible  and  contradictory.  Papal  theologians 
and  schoolmen,  for  the  purpose  of  reconciling  their  jarring  sys- 
tems, have  recourse  to  hair-breadth  distinctions,  which  involve 
their  works  in  midnight  obscurity.  The  discrepancy  of  their 
councils  is  augmented  by  the  war  of  commentators,  who  rival 
each  other  in  nonsense  and  hostility. 

Image  worship,  in  all  its  forms,  is  a  variation  from  scriptural 
authority,  and  from  Jewish  and  Christian  antiquity.  The  Jewish 
theology  and  usage  excluded  all  pencilled,  graven,  and  sculp- 
tured representations.  The  God  of  the  Hebrews,  in  the  second 
commandment,  which  many  popish  catechisms  have  prudently 
omitted,  forbids  making  and  adoring  the  likeness  of  any  thing 
in  heaven  or  earth.  The  Jewish  legislator,  actuated  by  inspira- 
tion, cautioned  Israel  against  the  formation  of  any  graven  or 
stony  effigy,  for  the  purpose  of  bowing  down  to  such  a  senseless 
statue.  He  warned  the  Jews  against  shaping  the  likeness  of 
any  beast,  fowl,  fish,  or  reptile,  and  against  worshipping  the 
sun,  moon,  or  stars  of  heaven.1  Perversity  itself,  one  would 
think,  could  scarcely  misunderstand  or  misrepresent  language, 
which  possesses  such  perspicuity  ynd  precision.  The  interdic- 
tion comprehends  every  likeness  or  effigy,  which,  if  worshipped, 
become  in  a  scriptural  sense  an  idol. 

Pope  Adrian,  the  second  Nicene  council,  and  many  moderns, 
have  pretended  to  find  examples  of  then:  system  in  the  cherubim 
and  brazen  serpent.  But  these,  unhappily  for  the  Romish 
theology,  were  neither  images  of  saints  nor  objects  of  worship. 
The  cherubim  overshadowed  the  mercy-seat  in  the  inner  court 
of  the  temple,  where  they  were  not  even  seen,  and,  if  possible, 
still  less  worshipped  by  the  Hebrews.  No  evidence  of  their 
adoration  indeed  has  been  attempted,  Adrian  and  the  Niceans, 
as  an  evidence  of  their  infallibility,  have,  in  this  case,  substitu- 
ted an  assumption  for  proof.  Aquinas,  Vasquez,  Lorin,  Azorius, 
and  Visorius,  Popish  theologians,  admit  that  no  adoration  was 
addressed  to  the  cherubim.2 

1  Leviticus  xxvi.  1.     Deuteronomy  iv.  15. 

2  Seraphim  non  ponebantur  ad  c  til  turn,  Aqnin.  I.  328.     Labb.  8.  1398.     Crabb. 
2.  480.     Alex.  14.  589.     Bell.  II.  12. 


462  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY' 

The  brazen  serpent,  typical  of  the  healing  Emmanuel,  could 
not  be  the  image  of  a  beautiful  saint.  A  serpent  could  not  re- 
semble 'the  human  face  divine.'  The  beauty  of  the  one  could 
not  be  represented  by  the  other's  deformity,  which  is  calcula- 
ted to  excite  horror  rather  than  veneration.  Serpentine  subtilty 
presents  a  contrast  rather  than  a  similarity  to  the  holy  men  and 
women,  especially  to  the  latter,  raised  to  the  honour  of  Roman 
canonization.  These,  characterized,  as  all  know,  by  innocence 
and  purity,  are  a  foil  to  an  animal  distinguished  by  its  noxious- 
ness and  deceit. 

The  Jews,  immured  in  barbarism,  had  established,  it  would 
seem,  no  manufactory  of  saints  similar  to  the  Roman  process, 
which  has  been  so  useful  in  the  days  of  modern  improvement 
and  popery.  The  Hebrews  were  allowed  to  pass  to  heaven  or 
purgatory  without  any  apotheosis  or  beatification.  The  serpent, 
which  the  Jewish  legislator  made  of  brass,  was  exposed  to  the 
view  of  Israel,  but  never  recommended  to  their  adoration.  No 
insinuation  of  the  kind  is  found  in  all  the  inspired  canon.  The 
Hebrews  indeed,  prone,  like  modern  papists,  to  idolatry,  began, 
in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  to  burn  incense  to  that  monument  of 
Jewish  antiquity.  But  the  Jewish  sovereign,  moved,  like  the 
Emperors,  Leo,  Constantine,  and  Theophilus,  with  holy  ardour 
for  the  honour  of  God,  shattered  the  object  of  idolatry  into 
frngments.1 

Gregory  the  Second  represents  Ozias,  who  lived  eighty-four 
years  before  the  event  and  was  great  grand-father  to  Hezekiah, 
as  the  breaker  of  the  brazen  serpent.  Ozias,  says  the  pontiff 
to  the  emperor,  was  your  brother  and  displayed  the  same  perti- 
nacity. His  holiness,  having  spent  in  worshipping  images  the 
time,  which  he  should  have  devoted  to  the  reading  of  the  Bible, 
was  ignorant  that  the  breaking  of  the  serpent  *  was  right  in  the 
sight  of  the  Lord.'  His  Infallibility  also  makes  '  David  bring 
the  brazen  serpent  and  the  holy  ark  into  the  Jewish  temple, 
though  the  Hebrew  monarch,  as  all  except  his  holiness  knew, 
died  before  the  erection  of  that  sacred  edifice  which  was  built 
by  Solomon.'2  This  was  very  clever  in  his  holiness,  and  a 
fine  specimen  of  this  terrestrial  god's  infallibility.  Few,  it  is 
probable,  could  have  effected  such  an  achievement.  His 
supremacy,  in  his  unerring  wisdom,  should  have  explained  the 
means  by  which,  with  so  great  facility,  he  conveyed  the  serpent 
and  the  ark  into  a  house  that  was  a  non-entity.  He  should 
have  described  the  manner  and  wonderful  machinery,  which 
deposited  the  two  Jewish  implements  with  so  much  safety  in 

1  2  Kings,  xviii.  4. 

8  Ilium  serpentem  sanctificatua  David,  nna  cum  area  sancta  in  templum  invexit 
Greg,  in  Labo,  8.  658.  Bin.  5.  505.  Chron.  xxvi.  23.  et  xxvii.  9.  xxviii.  27. 


IMAGE    WORSHIP    A    VARIATION    FROM    SCRIPTURE.        463 

an  unbuilt  fabric  and  under  an  unformed  roof.  Gregory  was 
a  valuable  head  of  the  church,  a  precious  vicar-general  of  God, 
and  a  useful  teacher  of  all  Christians.  His  infallibility,  notwith- 
standing these  and  many  other  blunders  of  his  own,  had  the 
hardihood  to  upbraid  the  emperor  Leo  with  his  ignorance  and 
stupidity.  Having  characterized  the  emperor  as  a  mere  ninny, 
his  holiness,  in  his  sacerdotal  modesty  and  Christian  humility, 
represented  himself  as  *  an  earthly  deity.' 

Image  worship  is  a  variation  from  the  Christian  as  well  as 
from  the  Jewish  revelation.  The  superstition  receives  no  coun- 
tenance from  the  monuments  of  ecclesiastical  antiquity.  Pope 
Adrian,  in  a  letter  read  and  approved  in  the  second  Nicene 
council,  could  muster  only  one  quotation  in  the  New  Testament 
in  favour  of  idolatry  ;  and  this,  his  infallibility  was  obliged  to 
pervert  to  make  it  answer  his  purpose.  Jacob,  according  to 
his  holiness,  followed  by  the  Rhemists,  *  adored  the  top  of  his 
rod.'  The  patriarch,  on  this  supposition,  must  through  age 
have  been  doting.  His  adoration,  if  his  infallibility  and  the 
Rhemists  were  not  mistaken,  was  addressed  to  a  very  humble 
deity ;  and  was  certainly  the  offspring  of  bad  taste  as  well  as 
little  sense.  Adrian,  to  maintain  a  silly  system,  makes  an  idiot 
of  Jacob.  All,  however,  is  the  effect  of  mistranslation  and 
misrepresentation.  The  patriarch  was  not  a  fool ;  but  the 
Pope,  supported  in  the  rear  by  the  Nicene  council  and  the 
Rhemish  annotators,  was  a  knave.  Hoary  Israel,  worn  out 
with  age  and  infirmity,  leaned  on  his  staff,  whilst,  in  faith,  he 
adored  God  and  blessed  the  sons  of  Joseph.  The  pontiff,  the 
Niceans,  and  the  Rhemists,  unfaithful  to  the  original,  have, 
with  unblushing  impudence  and  perversity,  omitted  the  pre- 
position, and,  in  consequence,  made  the  Hebrew  prophet 
worship  the  worthless  wood,  the  produce  of  the  soil.  The 
Rhemists  besides  have,  with  shameless  effrontery,  accused  the 
Protestants  of  mistranslation  and  corruption  of  the  Greek, 
which  contains  the  preposition.1 

The  Niceans,  varying  on  this  topic  from  fact  and  reason,  vary 
also  from  themselves.  Having  made  the  patriarch  worship  a 
walking-stick,  the  infallible  fathers  wheeled  to  the  right  about, 
and  denied  point-blank  that  his  adoration  was  addressed  to  the 
wood.  Jacob,  says  Adrian  approved  by  the  Niceans,  worship 
ped  not  the  stick,  but  Joseph.2  The  unerring  synod,  in  sheer 

1  Jacob  summitatem  virgae  filii  Joseph  deosculatus  est.     Labb.  8.  754.     Bin.  5. 
558.     Hebrews,  xi.  21. 

2  Non  quod  virgam  illam,  sed  tenentem  earn,  in  signum   dilectionis,  adoravit 
Crabb.  2.  480. 

Lignum  non  adoravit,  sed  per  lignum,  Joseph.     Labb.  8.  1400. 
Jacob,  in  summitate  virgae  Joseph  adorasse  dicitur,  non  sane  ligno  ilium  cultum 
exhibom.     Labb.  8.  1423. 


464  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

contradiction,  proceeded,  on  the  same  subject  and  nearly  ic 
the  same  breath,  both  to  affirm  and  deny. 

The  Rhemists  on  this  point  vary  from  the  Niceans,  who  had 
differed  from  themselves.  Tne  former  make  the  Jewish  seer 
worship  the  end  of  a  rod.  The  latter  affirm  that  his  adoration 
was  addressed  to  his  son  ;  though,  soaring  nobly  above  all  con- 
sistency, they  had,  in  the  preceding  sentence,  represented  a 
walking-staff  as  the  object  of  his  homage.  Agreed  in  imputing 
idolatry  to  Jacob,  these  two  interpreters  differ  in  attempting  to 
account  for  the  impiety.  Jacob,  say  the  Niceans,  acted  from 
regard  to  his  son  and  a  partiality  to  the  staff',  which,  these 
fathers  discovered  by  their  infallibility  belonged  to  Joseph. 
The  patriarch,  say  the  Rhemists,  was  moved  by  a  veneration 
for  the  rod,  which,  the  sage  annotators  discovered  without 
any  infallibility,  perfigured  the  sceptre  and  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah.1 

The  council  and  the  annotators,  jarring  in  this  way  with  one 
another,  gainsay  the  ablest  Jewish  translators,  Christian  fathers, 
and  Popish  commentators.  The  English  Protestant  transla- 
tion agrees  with  those  of  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  the  Targums 
of  Onkelos  and  Jerusalem.2  Aquila,  Symmachus  and  Onkelos, 
in  Origen,  Calmet,  and  Walton,  render  the  parallel  passage  in 
Genesis,  'Israel,  worshipped,  turning  towards  the  head  of  his 
couch.'  According  to  the  Targum  of  Jerusalem,  '  Jacob 
praised  God  on  his  bed.' 

The  Popish  version,  varying  from  the  Jewish  critics  Aquila, 
Symmachus,  and  Onkelos,  varies  also  from  the  Christian 
fathers,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Theodoret,  and  a  Parisian  synod.3 
Jerome  translates  the  Hebrew,  '  Israel,  turning  to  the  head  of 
the  bed,  adored  God.'  According  to  the  comment  of  Augus- 
tine on  Paul's  words  taken  from  the  Septuagint,  "Jacob, 
leaning  on  the  end  of  his  staff,  worshipped  God."  Theodoret's 
interpretation  is  similar  to  Augustine's.  Israel,  according  to 
this  expositor  on  Genesis,  '  worshipped,  reclining  his  head  on 
his  staff  which  he  held  in  his  right  hand.'  The  Parisian 
council's  interpretation  in  824,  coincides  with  that  of  Jerome, 
Augustine,  and  Theodoret. 

The  second  synod  of  Nice  and  the  translators  of  Rheims, 
differing  from  Jerome,  Augustine,  and  Theodoret,  differ  also 

1  Crabb,  2.  480.     Rhem.  on  Heb.  xi.  21. 

*  Hpoaexwyosv  lefpcwyX  trti  T^V  xstyatyv  1*1$  xfavrjf-     Aquil.  in  Orig.  Hex.  1.  52. 

Ilpoatxvvtj'tfv  Icrpcwyft,  fjti>  to  axpov  iv^  xfavvjs.  Orig.  Hex.  1.  52.  Calm.  23. 
742.  Walton,  6.  8. 

3  Adoravit  Israel,  conversus  ad  lectuli  caput.     Jerom.  1.  52. 

Se  inclinvait  ad  Deum  adorandum,  id  utique  fecisse  super  cacumen  virgae  sna 
qmam  sic  ferebat,  ut  super  earn,  caput  inclinando  adoraret.     Aug.  3.  418. 
ertweXwaj  iy  paj38co  tv^v  xttyo&ijv-     Theodoret,  1.  71. 


IMAGE    WORSHIP    A    VARIATION    FROM    SCRIPTURE.        405 

from  the  learned  translators  Simon,  Capellus,  Houbigant, 
Hasselan,  Caesareus,  Vatablus,  Pagnin,  and  Montanus,  as  well 
as  from  the  Syriac,  Samaritan,  and  Vulgate.  All  these  represent 
Jacob  as  worshipping,  leaning  on  the  head  of  his  staff  or  bed. 
The  Vulgate  of  Genesis,  faithful  to  the  Hebrew,  inserts  the 
preposition :  and  the  Douay  translators  accordingly  have 
followed  the  Latin,  and  allowed  the  patriarch  to  adore,  not  a 
rod,  but  Jehovah.  The  preposition,  which  is  found  in  the 
Greek  Septuagint  cited  by  Paul,  is  now  omitted  in  the  Latin 
of  the  Vulgate  ;  though  used  in  the  days  of  Augustine  in  some 
of  the  more  correct  manuscripts.1 

The  Niceans  and  Rhemists,  clashing  with  other  expositors 
and  translators,  disagree  with  the  ablest  Popish  commentators, 
such  as  Bede,  Lyra,  Erasmus,  Quesnel,  and  Calmet,  who  per- 
mit Jacob  to  worship  the  Almighty.2  The  patriarch,  says  Bede, 
*  adored  God.'  According  to  Lyra,  '  Israel,  being  old,  held  a 
staff  on  which  he  reclined  in  adoring  God.  The  meaning  is  not, 
that  he  adored  the  top  of  his  staff';  but  that  he  adored  God, 
leaning  on  the  top  of  his  staff.'  Christians, -says  Erasmus, 
'  abhorred,  at  that  time,  the  adoration  of  any  created  object,  and 
kept  this  honour  only  for  God.  Jacob,  says  Quesnel,  '  wor- 
shipped God,  leaning  on  his  staff.'  The  Jewish  prophet,  says 
the  learned  and  judicious  Calmet,  '  adored  God,  supported  on 
the  end  of  his  staff.  He  leaned  his  head  on  his  staff  to  worship 
God.' 

Pope  Gregory,  who  had  made  Ozias  break  the  brazen  serpent 
before  he  was  born,  and  David  bring  it  into  the  temple  before 
it  was  built,  discovered  another  argument  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Jesus  said,  "  where  the  carcass  is,  there  will  the  eagles 
be  gathered."  The  Lord,  says  Gregory,  was  the  carcass. 
The  eagles  were  men  of  piety,  who,  according  to  his  infallibility, 
flew  aloft  like  eagles  to  Jerusalem,  and  pourtrayed  Jesus,  James, 
Stephen,  and  the  mart}^rs.3  The  portraits,  taken  as  they  were 
from  real  life,  being  exhibited  to  the  whole  world,  men,  engaged 
by  the  holy  representations,  forsook  the  worship  of  Satan  for 
the  worship  of  these  striking  likenesses  of  Jesus,  James,  and 

1  Alex.  14.  753.     Simon,  in  Loco.     Calm.  23.  742.     Estius,  2.   1049.     Houbig. 
1.  155.     Montan.  1.  60.     Walton,  1.  214.     Aug.  3.  418. 

2  Adoravit  Deum.     Beda,  6.  811. 

Quia  erat  senex,  habebat  baculum,  super  hujus  summitatem  nitebatur,  in  ado 
rando  Deum.  Unde  non  est  intelligendum,  quod  adoravit  summitatem  virgae  vel 
baculi,  sed  adoravit  Deum,  innixus  super  baculum.  Lyra,  5.  156. 

In  tantum,  eo  tempore,  abhorrebant  ab  adorandis  ullis  rebus  creatis,  soli  Deo, 
hoc  honoris  servantes.  Erasm.  6.  1015. 

II  adora  Dieu,  appuye  sur  le  baton.     Quesnel,  4.  333. 

II  adora  Dieu,  appuye  sur  1'extremite  de  son  baton.  II  pencha  la  t6te  sur  son 
baton  pour  adorer  Dieu.  Calmet,  23.  741. 

8  Christus  autem  cadaver.  Aquilse,  in  sublime  volantes,  religiosi  sunt  homines 
Labb.  8.  655,  770.  Bin.  5.  503.  Matt.  xxiv.  28. 

30 


466  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERtf  . 

Stephen.  This  was  very  sensible  in  the  vicar-general  of  God, 
and  makes  the  thing  very  clear.  Some  heretical  critics,  indeed, 
who  are  too  officious,  have  wondered  how  the  supreme  pontiff 
obtained  his  information  ;  while  many  have  had  the  temerity 
to  hint  that  the  proselytism,  on  this  supposition,  was  only  from 
one  kind  of  idolatry  to  another.  Some,  too,  supposing  through 
ignorance  or  mistake  that  the  world  was  converted  by  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel,  have  questioned  the  use  of  images  in 
the  important  work.  But  these  heretics,  always  meddling  and 
troublesome,  have,  in  these  insinuations,  shewn,  as  usual,  their 
insufferable  impertinence.  The  second  Nicene  council,  on  these 
kinds  of  topics,  deprecated,  in  their  usual  prudence,  all  narrow 
anft  unnecessary  scrutiny.  The  Roman  hierarch's  exposition 
contains  a  momentous  discovery,  which,  in  importance  and 
utility,  rivals  those  of  Montanus,  Swedenborg,  and  Southcott, 
and  must  have  been  very  satisfactory  to  himself  and  his  friends. 
His  infallibility's  comment  is  like  the  raving  of  a  man  who  is 
crazy,  and  who  has  escaped  from  the  responsibility  which  might 
be  supposed  to  attend  on  sanity  of  intellect.  The  pontiff's 
interpretation  presents  an  unequalled  specimen  of  jargon.  The 
father  and  teacher  of  all  Christians,  on  this  occasion,  has  carried 
nonsense  to  a  state  of  unqualified  perfection  which  fears  no 
rivalry. 

Such  is  the  specimen  of  arguments,  for  this  system,  taken 
from  the  Bible  and  founded  on  Scriptural  authority.  Many 
others  of  the  same  kind  and  equally  silly  might  be  produced. 
But  the  Nicene  logic,  if  it  deserve  the  name,  is  unworthy  of 
repetition.  The  reasoning  resembles  the  mockery  of  a  Swift  or 
some  other  satirist,  who,  in  a  keen  vein  of  irony,  exposed  the 
cause  which  he  pretended  to  advocate.  Gregory,  Adrian,  and 
the  Nicene  council,  it  would  seem,  wished  to  excite  a  laugh  at 
their  own  expense. 

Symbolical  worship  is  a  variation  from  ecclesiastical  antiquity, 
as  well  as  from  Scriptural  authority.  The  early  fathers,  copy- 
ing the  example  of  ihe  Jewish  prophets  and  Christian  apostles, 
exploded  the  impiety  from  their  system.  These  disclaimed  the 
worship  of  images  as  the  invention  of  Satan,  injurious  to  devo- 
tion, and  deceitful,  as  books  for  the  unlearned,  as  monitors  for 
the  memory,  or  aids  for  piety. 

The  partizans  of  emblematic  worship,  driven  from  the  fort- 
ress of  Scriptural  authority  and  authentic  history,  have  in- 
trenched themselves  behind  the  wonders  of  legendary  tales  and 
miraculous  testimony.  Fabrications  and  miracles  have,  in  the 
absence  of  Scriptural  and  historical  evidence,  been  sought  for 
the  support  of  a  system  inconsistent  with  reason  and  Revela- 
tion. The  second  Nicene  council  collected  a  vast  accumulation 


VARIATION    FROM    ECCLESIASTICAL    ANTIQUITY.  467 

of  this  rubbish,  and  have  been  followed  in  modern  times  by 
Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius,  Turriano,  Maimbourg,  and 
Alexander,  who  have  transcribed  the  fictions  and  emblazoned 
the  '  lying  wonders'  of  Evagrius,  Nicephorus,  Damascen,  and 
Theodoras.  A  few  of  these  will  shew  the  ignorance  and 
credulity  of  the  ancient  and  modern  patrons  of  idolatry. 

The  portrait  of  Jesus,  sent  to  Abgarus,  King  of  Edessa, 
claims  the  first  place.  His  Edessan  majesty,  it  seems,  sent 
Ananias  to  Judea  to  draw  the  Messiah's  likeness.  This  task 
the  artist  attempted,  but  could  not  perform,  on  account  of  the 
splendour  which  radiated  from  Emmanuel's  countenance. 
Seeing  the  painter's  embarrassment,  Jesus  washed  his  face, 
and,  in  a  miraculous  manner,  impressed  his  sacred  and  divine 
likeness  on  a  linen  cloth,  which,  with  the  politest  attention,  he 
handed  to  Ananias.  The  Son  of  God,  says  Pope  Gregory, 
sent  Abgarus  his  glorious  face,  which  the  sovereign  of  Edessa 
worshipped  with  great  devotion.1  This  portrait,  wonderful  to 
tell,  the  work  of  no  mortal  pencil,  the  creation  of  the  Divine 
original,  was  left  during  a  tedious  lapse  of  five  hundred  years, 
to  slumber  on  the  niche  of  a  wall,  from  which,  after  long  obliv- 
ion," it  was  released  by  the  hand  of  superstition  or  credulity. 
The  unpencilled  picture,  made  without  hands,  became  the 
palladium  of  the  nation's  safety,  and  delivered  the  Edessans 
from  the  arms  of  the  Persians.  The  silly  fabrication,  in  reality, 
unknown  in  the  days  of  Eusebius,  was  the  invention  of  the 
sixth  century.  The  Syrian  legend,  which  adorned  the  annals 
of  superstition  and  credulity,  constituted  the  panoply  of  Gregory, 
Damascen,  and  the  second  Nicene  council. 

Images  of  lady  Mary,  as  well  as  of  her  son,  adorned  the  altar 
and  edified  the  faithful.  Arnold,  it  seems,  in  his  peregrinations 
in  Palestine,  saw  an  extraordinary  likeness  of  her  ladyship.  This 
portrait  had  been  drawn  on  wood,  which  afterward,  wonderful 
to  tell,  was  transformed  into  human  mould  and  assumed  a  living 
form  and  substance.  Flesh  grew  over  the  wood  of  the  tablet, 
and  over  the  colours  of  the  pencil.2  The  incarnated  painting 
began  to  emit  a  fragrant  oil,  which  healed  the  disorders  of  all 
kinds  of  men,  Christians,  Jews,  and  Saracens.  The  medicinal 
fluid  continued,  from  age  to  age,  to  flow  without  any  diminu- 
tion either  in  quantity  or  effect. 

John,  who  was  a  hermit  and  who  lived  in  a  cave  in  Palestine, 
twenty  miles  from  Jerusalem,  worshipped  an  image  of  lady 
Mary  with  her  son  in  her  arms,  before  which,  in  his  cell,  he 

1  Sacram  et  gloriosam  faciem  suam  ad  eura  misit.  Greg,  ad  Leo.  Labb.  8. 
655.  Spon.  31.  XXIII.  Evag.  IV.  27.  Cedren.  1,  140.  Bin.  5.  716. 

3  Pictura  super  lignum  est  incarnata,  et  oleum  maxime  odoriferum  emitters 
coepit.  Spondan.  870.  IX. 

30* 


468  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

kept  a  candle  always  burning.  The  solitary  made  frequent 
peregrinations  to  Sina,  to  the  great  desert,  and  to  Jerusalem, 
for  the  important  purpose  of  adoring  the  holy  cross.  He  was 
also  a  great  votary  of  the  martyrs  ;  aad  shewing  no  mercy  to 
his  unfortunate  feet,  which  he  wore  for  the  good^of  his  soul,  he 
visited  Theodorus,  John,  Sergius,  and  Tecla.  His  journey 
would,  at  a  time,  occupy  two,  four,  or  six  months  ;  and,  during 
his  absence,  he  committed  the  light  to  the  care  of  her  ladyship, 
to  prevent  the  mother  and  son  from  being  in  darkness.  The 
anchoret  travelled,  and  left  the  queen  of  heaven  to  snuff  the 
candle.  The  mother  of  God  executed  the  humble  task  with 
great  fidelity.  John,  on  his  return  from  his  holy  and  useful 
pilgrimages,  found  the  candle  always  burning,  and  notwith- 
standing his  long  absence,  remaining,  through  her  ladyship's 
attention,  not  the  least  wasted.1 

The  cross,  like  the  images  of  Jesus  and  Mary,  became  the 
object  of  worship  and  the  agent  of  miracles.  Theodorus,  accord- 
ing to  Bede  and  Godeau,  brought  the  true  cross  from  Jeru- 
salem to  Constantinople,  and  deposited  it  in  the  temple  of 
Sophia.  This  wooden  deity  was  there  exhibited  on  the  Thursday, 
Friday,  and  Saturday  of  holy-week,  for  the  adoration  of  the 
laymen,  the  women,  and  the  clergy.  The  laymen  on  Thursday 
adored  the  jointed  divinity,  who,  in  all  probability,  was  worm- 
eaten,  but  still  perhaps  respectable  as  Priapus.  The  women, 
on  Friday,  performed  the  sublime  and  august  ceremony,  and 
the  clergy,  on  Saturday,  engaged,  with  great  piety  and  edifica- 
tion, in  the  same  duty.  The  *god  was  then  locked  in  a  chest 
to  sleep  for  the  rest  of  the  year.  During  the  display,  and  while 
the  cross  lay  on  the  altar,  the  temple  was  filled  with  a  wonder- 
ful odour.  His  transverse  godsnip,  it  appears,  was,  among 
other  attributes,  distinguished  by  the  superiority  of  his  smell. 
A  fragrant  liquor,  also,  like  oil,  which  healed  all  kinds  of 
sickness,  flowed  in  copious  streams  from  the  knots  of  the  sacred 
wood,  which  composed  the  frame  of  this  clumsy  god.2 

The  authority,  on  which  the  second  Nicene  council  as  well  as 
the  moderns,  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Maimbourg,  and  Alexander 
rest  these  accounts,  is,  as  the  candid  Du  Pin  has  shewn,  desti- 
tute of  authenticity,  pertinence,  and  antiquity.  Many  of  their 
quotations  for  evidence  are  from  suppositions  productions. 
Works  are  ascribed  to  Basil,  Chrysostom,  and  Athanasius, 
which  these  saints  never  saw,  though  cited  in  their  name,  by 
the  Niceans,  Baronius,  and  Bellarmine.  Some  of  their  author- 
ities are  impertinent  as  well  as  apocryphal.  Many  of  the 
Nicene  citations  from  Basil,  Cyril,  and  Gregory,  testify,  says 
Du  Pin,  not  the  worship  of  images  but  merely  their  use. 

1  Labh.  8.  1451.    Bin.  5.  718.         *  Beda,  323.  Godeau,  5.  137.  Horace,  Sat  2 


PRETENDED  MIRACULOUS  PROOFS  OF   IMAGE  WORSHIP.    469 

The  authorties  of  the  Niceans,  Baronius,  Bellar mine,  and 
Alexander  are  as  void  of  antiquity  as  of  pertinence  and  authen- 
ticity. The  sacred  synod  and  their  copyists  could  not,  for  their 
system,  produce  the  testimony  of  a  single  father  who  lived 
prior  to  the  fourth  century.  Their  chief  vouchers  for  this  su- 
perstition are  Chrysostom,  Gregory,  Athanasius,  Basil,  Cyril, 
Nilus,  Simeon,  Sophron,  Anastasius,  Leontius,  Germanus, 
Damascen,  and  Evagrius.  Chrysostom,  Gregory,  Athanasius, 
and  Basil  flourished  in  the  fourth  century,  and  the  rest  in  the 
succeeding  ages  of  Christianity.  All  these,  it  is  admitted, 
lived  after  the  introduction  of  symbolical  worship.  No  author, 
for  three  hundred  years  after  the  commencement  of  the  Christian 
era,  is  quoted.  This  tedious  and  lengthened  period  elapsed 
without  a  single  individual,  in  all  Christendom,  to  recommend 
or  exemplify  this  impiety.  The  annals  of  these  ages  supply 
not  a  solitary  testimony  which  ingenuity  itself,  and  much  less 
the  stupidity  of  Gregory,  Adrian,  and  the  Nicene  prelacy,  could 
pervert  into  evidence  for  emblematic  adoration. 

The  force  of  truth  extorted  confessions  to  this  effect  from 
many  popish  critics  and  historians.  Many  who  were  attached 
to  Romanism  have  admitted  the  exclusion  of  images  in  the 
days  of  antiquity,  notwithstanding  the  confident,  but  unfounded 
assertions  of  Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Binius,  Turriano,  Juenin, 
Maimbourg,  and  many  more  of  the  same  description.  From 
among  the  number  who  have  made  this  acknowledgement,  may, 
as  a  specimen,  be  selected  Petavius,  Daniel,  Mezeray,  Alexan- 
der, Pagius,  Du  Pin,  Erasmus,  Cassander,  Gyraldus,  Mendoza, 
Bruys,  Polydorus,  Clemangis,  and  Crinitus.  Petavius,  Daniel, 
Mezeray,  Alexander,  Pagius,  and  Du  Pin  grant  the  scarcity  or 
total  want  of  painted  or  sculptured  representations  in  primitive 
times,  lest  their  use  should  have  offended  the  Jews  or  tempted 
the  Pagans  to  idolatry.  Erasmus  represents  men  of  piety  as 
excluding  painted,  sculptured,  and  woven  images  from  Christian 
temples  till  the  age  of  Jerome  in  the  fourth  century.  Christians, 
at  the  commencement  of  preaching  the  Gospel,  detested,  says 
Cassander,  the  use  and  veneration  of  any  likeness  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God.  According  to  Gyraldus,  Christians,  like  the 
Romans,  remained  for  some  time  without  images.  Mendoza, 
Bruys,  Polydorus,  and  Clemangis  make  similar  admissions. 
Crinitus  reprehends  Origen,  Lactantius,  and  some  others  of 
the  ancients  for  condemning  symbolical  worship.1 

1  Imagines,  per  tria  priora  saecula  in  oratoriis  collocatas  non  fuisse,  nee  frequen- 
ter etiam  in  domibus  privatis  servatas.  Petav.  in  Juenin,  4.  380. 

Dans  le  commencement  de  1'eglise,  1'usage  des  images  n'etoit  pas  frequent. 

Les  peintures  et  les  images  de  relief  etoient  fort  Bares  dans  les  eglises  avan. 
Constantino  le  grand.  Mezeray,  Av.  Clov.  451. 


470  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

The  use  of  images,  which  preceded  their  worship  and  which 
commenced  in  the  fourth  century,  was,  on  this  topic,  the  first 
variation  from  Romanism.  The  Simonians,  Carpocratians, 
Manicheans,  and  Collyridians,  at  an  earlier  date,  had,  as 
appears  from  Irenasus,  Augustine,  and  Epiphanius,  begun  this 
impiety.  The  Gnostics,  in  succeeding  times,  began  to  worship 
the  statues  of  Jesus,  Pythagoras,  and  Plato,  and  the  Simonian, 
Manichean,  and  Gnostic  absurdity  of  emblematic  worship,  was 
afterward  copied  by  the  mistaken  friends  of  Christianity. 
Images,  says  Alexander,  unknown  in  Christendom  in  the  first 
ages,  were  uncommon  in  the  fourth  century,  and  unnumbered 
among  the  implements  of  the  church  by  Eusebius,  Athanasius, 
Optatus,  and  Jerome.1 

The  second  variation  of  Romanism,  on  this  subject,  consisted 
in  the  worship  of  images  which  succeeded  their  use.  Many 
adored  these  lifeless  forms  on  their  first  introduction  into  the 
Christian  commonwealth.  Their  adoration,  however,  was  not 
general  till  the  end  of  the  sixth  century.  But  the  innovation 
soon  advanced  to  maturity.  The  visible  similitudes  of  Saints 
and  Martyrs  became  admirable  physicians  ;  and,  by  application 
to  diseased  limbs,  effected  astonishing  cures.  The  credulity 
of  the  populace  was  fed  with  tales,  miracles,  visions,  arid  the 
dreams  of  fanatical  monks.  The  rank  superstition  in  conse- 
quence had  arrived  at  full  growth,  and  appeared  in  all  its 
disgusting  formality  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century. 

The  use  and  worship  of  images,  adopted  from  Gnosticism  or 
Gentilism,  became,  in  this  way,  an  adventitious  appendage  of 
Christianity.  The  ugly  excrescence  was  affixed  to  a  fair  sys- 
tem, as  the  deformity  of  a  wen  on  the  cheek  of  beauty.  Idola- 
try, inconsistent  indeed  with  Christianity,  is  congenial  with  the 
human  mind.  The  Jews  under  a  theocracy  and  the  immediate 
tuition  of  heaven,  often  adored  idols  insteads  of  Jehovah.  The 

Vix  ullum  fuisse  imaginum  usum,  tribus  prioribus  sseculis.  Alex.  14.  655.  Pa- 
gius,  Ann.  56.  Du  Pin,  2.  43. 

Veterea  qui  tanto  studio  obstiterunt,  ne  quid  imaginum  in  templo  Christiano  re- 
perietur.  Erasm.  11.  1770. 

In  templis  nullam  ferebant  imaginem.     Erasm.  5.  1187. 

Aliquanto  tempore,  inter  Christianos  imaginum  usum non  fuisse.     Cassander,  163. 

Nos  dico  Christianos,  ut  aliquando  Romanes  fuisse  sine  imaginibus,  in  primitiva 
quae  vocatur  ecclesia.  Gyraldus,  I. 

Abstinebant  ad  tempus.     Mendoza.  III.  5.     Labb.  1.  1252. 

Ils  (les  Empereurs)  vouloient  ramener  la  practique  de  primiers  siecles.  Brays, 
1.  608. 

Simulachrorum  cultum  omnes  fere  veteres  patres  damnasse.    Poly.  Virg.  VI.  13. 

Statuit  olim  universa  ecclesia  ut  nullae  in  templis  imagines  ponerentur.  Clem- 
ang.  151.  Crinitus,  IX.  9. 

1  Vix  ullum  fuisse  imaginum  usum  tribus  prioribus  saeculis ;  nee  admodum  quarto 
etiam  sseculo.  Neque  quarto  saeculo  statim  in  ecclesiis  omnibus  obtinuit,  nee  inter 
ecclesiae  instrumenta  numerate  fuerunt  icones  ab  Eusebio,  Athanasio,  Optato,  aut 
Hieronymo.  Alex.  14,  654,  656.  Iren.  I.  24.  Epiph.  H.  27.  Augustin,  8.  7. 


INTRODUCTION    OF    IMAGES    INTO    THE    CHURCH.  47 i 

heathen,  forgetting  the  spiritual  and  invisible  Deity,  bowed  to 
the  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  The  adoration  of  Gentilism,  through 
a  partiality  to  emblematic  worship,  was  addressed  to  nearly 
every  reptile  of  the  earth  and  every  luminary  of  the  sky.  The 
Christians,  awed  by  the  authority  of  heaven,  were,  for  more 
than  three  ages,  restrained  from  the  headlong  impiety.  But 
the  bias  of  the  soul  burst,  at  length,  through  the  injunctions  of 
the  Creator,  and  launched  with  crowded  canvass  into  the  wide 
ocean  of  symbolical  and  popular  superstition.  The  veneration 
of  the  cross  and  of  relics  was  first  introduced.  The  emblem 
of  redemption  or  the  remains  of  a  saint  were  preserved  with 
superstitious  devotion.  The  portrait  or  the  statue  of  the  Saint 
or  the  Saviour  succeeded,  as  more  striking  memorials  of  holiness 
or  salvation.  The  painted  or  sculptured  effigy,  introduced 
indeed  with  caution,  was  allowed  to  adorn  the  oratory,  instruct 
the  ignorant,  warm  the  frigid,  or  gratify  the  prepossessions  of 
the  convert  from  Gentilism.  The  new  portraits  and  statues, 
though  executed  in  defiance  of  all  taste,  spread  from  east  to 
west,  gratified  the  imagination  of  the  superstitious,  ornamented 
the  Grecian  Temple  or  Roman  Basilic,  and  finally  received  the 
adoration  of  the  deluded  and  degraded  votary. 

Symbolical  worship,  on  its  introduction,  was  opposed  by 
Synodal,  Episcopal,  Pontifical,  and  Imperial  authority.  The 
impiety  was  interdicted  by  a  synod  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
century.  The  Council  of  Elvira  in  Spain,  about  the  year  305, 
decreed,  that  '  pictures  should  not  be  in  churches,  lest  what  is 
worshipped  or  adored  should  be  painted  on  walls.'1  The  deci- 
sion of  Elvira,  which  condemned  the  superstition,  is  in  direct 
contradiction  to  the  canons  of  Nicsea  and  Trent. 

The  popish  theologians  have  exerted  all  their  ingenuity  to 
evade  this  unlucky  enactment.  Their  comments  display  an 
amusing  diversity  ;  but  an  odd  specimen  of  papal  unity.  Baro- 
nius  and  Bosius  regard  the  council,  or  at  least  this  canon,  as  a 
forgery  of  the  Iconoclasts.  This  imputation  is  an  admission  of 
its  hostility  to  the  reigning  system  of  Romanism.  The  ground- 
less opinion,  however,  is  now  universally  exploded.  Vasquez, 
Sanderus,  Turriano,  and  Bellarmine  think  that  the  Spanish  pre- 
lacy forbad  pictures,  not  on  wood  or  canvass,  but  on  walls, 
lest  they  should  be  defaced  by  the  damp  or  profaned  by  the 
Jews  and  Pagans.  Albaspinaeus  and  Payva  represent  the  in- 
terdiction as  restricted  to  portraits  of  God.  Mendoza,  Pagius, 
and  Bona  would  limit  the  prohibition  to  similitudes  of  the  Trinity, 
lest  that  mystery  should  be  divulged  to  the  uninitiated.  The 
Spanish  episcopacy,  according  to  Alan  and  Alexander,  were 

1  Placuit  picturas  in  ecclesia  esse  non  debere,  ne  quod  colitur  et  adoratur  in 
parietibus  depingatur.  Bin.  1.  235.  Labbeus,  1.  995. 


472  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

afraid  of  idolatry  which  then  prevailed  in  the  kingdom.  Fleury 
accounted  the  canon  a  mere  temporary  decision,  suited  to  the 
times  of  persecution.  This  explanation,  says  Bruys,  is  calcu- 
lated to  afford  a  laugh  to  the  adversary.1 

Carranza,  Canus,  Petavius,  Alexander,  Bruys,  and  Du  Pin 
admit  the  genuineness  and  natural  signification  of  the  canon . 
but  with  different  designs.  Carranza  accuses  the  Spanish  bishops 
of  error,  and  Canus  of  imprudence  and  impiety.  Petavius, 
Alexander,  Bruys,  and  Du  Pin  candidly  confess  that  the 
primitive  discipline  still  prevailed  in  Spain,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  use  and  worship  of  the  portrait  or  tne  statue.2  This  indeed 
is  the  plain  meaning  of  the  canon  :  and  every  other  gloss  makes 
the  words  signify  the  direct  contrary  of  what  they  say. 

Emblematic  worship,  at  its  introduction,  was  prescribed  by 
episcopal  as  well  as  by  synodal  authority.  The  empress  Con- 
stantia  sent  to  Eusebius  of  Ca3sarea  for  an  image  of  our  Lord. 
But  the  bishop,  in  return,  objected  to  the  painting  of  either 
Emmanuel's  divinity  or  humanity.  The  Deity,  said  Eusebius, 
has  no  form,  and  the  manhood,  clothed  with  Divine  glory,  can- 
not be  represented  by  the  lifeless  colours  of  the  pencil.3 

The  popish  critics,  in  reply  to  this  relation,  display  their 
unity  by  the  variety  of  their  answers.  Petavius  and  Alan, 
without  any  reason,  account  it  a  forgery  of  the  Iconoclasts. 
This,  however,  is  a  plain  confession  of  its  hostility  to  symboli- 
cal adoration.  The  Nicene  council,  in  reply,  called  Eusebius 
an  Arian :  though,  in  the  quotation,  he  acknowledges,  in  the 
plainest  terms,  the  Godhead  of  the  Son.  Du  Pin  admits  the 
weakness  of  the  Nicene  answer.  Alexander,  notwithstanding 
his  prepossessions,  grants  that  the  Caesarean  Christians,  ad- 
hering to  primitive  simplicity,  used  in  that  age  no  images.4 

Epiphanius,  like  Eusebius,  deprecated  the  adoration  of 
visible  representations.  The  bishop  of  Salamis  and  Metropoli- 
tan of  Cyprus,  passing  through  Anablatha  in  Palestine,  saw 
the  image  of  Jesus  or  some  saint  hanging  on  a  wall  before  the 
door  of  the  church.  This  the  bishop  rent,  and  declared  such 
an  abuse  to  be  contrary  to  Scriptural  authority,  inconsistent 
with  the  Christian  religion,  and  unworthy  of  a  professing 
people.  Jerome,  who  translated  the  letter,  which  contains 
this  relation,  and  which  was  written  by  Epiphanius  to  John  of 

1  Labbeus,  1.  1021.  Bosius,  XII.  1.  Sanderus,  III.  4.  Turrian.  I.  2.  Bell. 
II.  9.  Albasp.  c.  36.  Mend.  III.  5.  Alan.  IV.  16.  Fleury.  IX. 

8  Imagines  per  tria  priora  saecula  in  Oratoriis  collocatas  non  fuisse.  Petav.  ic 
Juen.  4.  380.  Sublatum  fuisse  in  provincia  Boetica  imaginum  usum  et  cultum. 
Alexander,  14.  662.  Du  Pin,  1.  593.  Canus  V.  4.  Labb.  1.  1052.  Bruy.  :  90 

3  Juenin,  4.  390.     Du  Pin,  2.  37. 

<  Petav.  XV.  14.    Alex.  14  665. 


PROGRESS    OF    IMAGE-WORSHIP.  473 

Jerusalem,  throws  no  blame  on  the  Metropolitan,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  calls  him  a  pattern  of  pristine  sanctity.1 

The  worship  of  images  was,  in  the  seventh  century,  con- 
demned by  pontifical  authority,  as  it  had,  on  former  occasions, 
been  denounced  by  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  the  council  of 
Elvira.  Serenus,  the  Massilian  bishop,  had  demolished  some 
images,  which  his  flock,  in  mistaken  piety,  had  adored.  Greg- 
ory the  Great,  in  601,  wrote  to  Serenus  on  this  occasion ;  and 
blamed  the  bishop  for  breaking  these  pictures,  but  praised 
him,  in  unqualified  language,  for  preventing  their  adoration. 
These  similitudes,  said  his  infallibility,  are  erected,  "  not  for 
the  worship  of  any,  but  ONLY  for  the  instruction  of  the  ignorant. 
Allow  images  therefore  to  be  made,  but  forbid  them  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  any  manner."  Such  are  the  statements  of  Du  Pin, 
Bruys,  and  Godeau.  Du  Pin  renders  Gregory's  words  by  a 
French  expression,  signifying  "  in  any  manner  whatever." 
Bruys  translates  the  pontiff's  language,  "  in  any  way,"  and 
Godeau  "  in  every  manner."2 

Dionysius,  Bellarmme,  Alexander,  and  Juenin  represent 
Gregory  as  condemning,  not  the  subordinate  veneration  of 
images,  but  their  supreme  adoration.  His  infallibility,  accord- 
ing to  these  critics,  allowed  the  inferior  homage  of  these  pictures 
but  interdicted  their  sovereign  worship.  This  is  to  make  his 
holiness  mean  the  direct  opposite  of  what  he  says.  The  inter- 
pretation is  a  diametrical  inversion  of  the  expression.  The 
reasoning  of  these  authors  is  a  beautiful  specimen  of  dialec- 
tics. Images,  says  Gregory,  are  intended  only  for  instruction, 
and  therefore,  say  Dionysius,  Bellarmine,  and  Juenin,  they 
are  also  designed  for  adoration.  Pictures,  according  to  his 
infallibility,  are  to  be  worshipped  in  no  way,  and  therefore, 
according  to  modern  logicians,  they  are  to  be  worshipped  in 
some  way.  These  theologians  reason  like  men,  who  wish  to 
ridicule  the  subject  on  which  they  treat.  The  allegation  of 
Dionysius,  says  Bruys,  is  ridiculous  in  the  view  of  sincerity 
and  impartiality.3 

Synodal,  episcopal,  and  pontifical  authority  began,  in  the 
eighth  century,  to  be  supported  by  imperial  power.  The  bishop, 
the  pontiff,  and  the  council,  attempted  in  vain  to  stem  the  tide 

1  Contra  autoritatem  Scripturarum.     Jerom.  1.  828. 

In  ecclesid  Christi  istiusmodi  vela  quae  contra  religionem  nostram  veniunt.  In- 
digna  est  ecclesia  Christi  et  populis,  qui  tibi  crediti  sunt.  Jerom,  4.  829.  Ep. 
110.  Alex.  14.  666.  Du  Pin,  1.  296.  Juenin,  4.  380. 

3  Quia  eas  adorari  vetuisses  omnino  laudavimus.     Labb.  6.  1156. 

Non  ad  adorandum  in  ecclesiis,  sed  ad  instruendas  solunimodo  mentes  fuit  nes- 
cientium  coilocatura.  Greg.  IX.  Ep.  9. 

Adorare  vero  imagines  omnibus  modis  evita.  Greg,  ad  Seren.  Evitez  en  toute 
inaniers,  qu'on  ne  les  adore.  Godea.  5.  14.  Du  Pin,  1.  574. 

>  Diony.  IV.  1.     Alex.  14.  682.     Bruy.  1.  375. 


I 

474  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

of  popular  superstition.  The  current  of  idolatry,  so  congenial 
with  human  depravity,  overwhelmed  or  subverted  all  the 
barriers  of  ecclesiastical  prohibition.  The  clergy,  like  the  laity, 
were  hurried  down  the  overflowing  and  headlong  stream  of 
apostacy,  and  bowed  with  the  multitude  to  the  painted  or 
sculptured  idol.  The  priesthood  and  the  people,  yielding  to 
the  inundation  of  error,  perpetrated  high  treason  against  God, 
and  substituted  the  work  of  the  pencil  and  chisel  lor  the  Creator 
of  earth  and  heaven.  The  emperor,  on  this  exigency,  inter- 
posed the  arm  of  power,  and  shattered  into  fragments  the 
objects  of  idolatry. 

Leo  the  Isaurian  was  the  first  emperor  who  ventured  to 
oppose  the  threatening  impiety.  This  prince,  though  descended 
from  an  humble  origin,  and  devoid  of  literary  or  philosophical 
attainments,  possessed  extraordinary  vigour  and  intrepidity. 
Disgusted  with  the  new  idolatry,  and  stimulated  by  the  sar- 
casms of  the  Jews  and  Saracens,  he  resolved  to  exterminate  the 
Antichristian  innovation.  Full  of  this  design,  he  convoked  an 
assembly  of  the  bishops  and  senators  ;  and  all  these,  except 
Germanus,  concurred  in  the  plan  of  eradicating  the  superstition, 
as  an  innovation  in  the  church,  a  scandal  to  Christianity,  and 
the  degradation  of  man.  The  emperor,  however,  proceeded  at 
first  with  caution.  He  interdicted  the  worship  of  images,  and 
removed  the  idols  from  the  altars  to  a  higher  place  in  the  tem- 
ples. This  remedy  proving  insufficient,  Leo  ordered  their 
demolition  without  delay  or  restriction.1 

The  execution  of  the  imperial  edict  was  attended  with  dread- 
ful commotions.  Leo,  stigmatized  for  irreligion  and  heresy,  was 
resisted  by  Germanus  and  Gregory,  the  patriarch  and  the 
pontiff*.  The  partizans  of  superstition,  priests  and  laymen, 
flew  to  arms.  The  Byzantine  citizens,  man  and  women, 
attacked  the  imperial  army  and  massacred  several  of  the 
soldiery.  Some  of  the  women  fell  in  arms,  and  received,  says 
Andilly,  a  glorious  death  as  the  reward  of  their  piety.2 

Pope  Gregory,  in  the  meantime,  attacked  Leo  with  the  pen, 
as  the  Byzantines  had  assailed  him  with  the  sword.  The  pon- 
tiff, in  his  letter,  characterized  the  emperor  as  stupid  and  igno- 
rant, and  in  the  warmth  and  benevolence  of  his  zeal,  "  prayed 
the  Lord  to  set  the  devil  upon  his  majesty."3  His  infallibility's 
petition,  no  doubt,  showed  great  piety.  But  the  holy  viceroy 
of  heaven,  while  he  described  the  emperor  as  a  ninny  and 
invoked  the  aid  of  Satan,  took  special  care  to  mention  his  own 

1  Leon,  d'une  naissance  obscure,  ne  devoit  1'empire  qu'  &  sa  rare  valeur.  Ver 
tot,  7.  Theoph.  272.  Labb.  8.  646.  Giannon,  V.  $.  2.  Alex.  14.  70. 

»  Labb.  8.  646.     Andilly,  381. 

3  Invocamus  Christum  ut  immittat  tibi  Daemonem.  Labb.  8.  671.  Bin.  5.  503 
Bruys,  1.  530. 


IMAGE-WORSHIP  OPPOSED  BY  THE  EMPEROR  LEO.          476 

dignity,  and  represented  himself  as  an  earthly  God.  Gregory, 
in  his  supplication  for  Leo,  had  evinced  great  piety,  and  in 
like  manner,  in  his  report  of  himself,  displayed  equal  modesty. 

Theophanes,  Alexander,  Baronius,  Maimbourg,  and  Pagius 
have  flattered  Gregory  with  the  grossest  adulation,  notwith- 
standing his  invocation  of  his  infernal  majesty.  Theophanes 
represents  his  holiness  as  '  excelling  in  word  and  deed.'  Alex- 
ander calls  the  superstitious  blasphemer  a  'holy  pontiff.'  Gre- 
gory's letter,  says  Baronius  and  Maimbourg,  was  worthy  of  the 
high  pontiff  who  was  its  author.1  The  pontifical  production,  in 
its  politeness  and  devotion,  was  quite  satisfactory  to  the  Jesuits. 
The  epistle  remains  a  lasting  monument  of  the  earthly  God's 
erudition  and  infallibility.  Gregory's  devotion,  in  his  reply  to 
Leo,  far  surpassed  Luther's  in  his  answer  to  Henry.  The  Ger- 
man reformer  certainly  did  not  spare  the  English  king.  His 
zeal  ofter  evaporated  in  abuse  and  scurrility.  But  the  reformer, 
in  the  use  of  these  weapons,  was  far  excelled  by  the  pontiff. 
Gregory's  devotion  also  outshone  Luther's  as  much  as  his  zeal. 
Luther,  though  he  used  language  which  did  not  exceed  in 
urbanity,  never  ventured  to  solicit  the  interference  of  the  devil. 
But  the  vicar-general  of  God  prayed  that  Satan  might  be  let 
loose  on  Leo,  and  this  was  the  pontiff's  best  supplication  for 
the  emperor. 

His  holiness  wielded  not  only  his  pen,  but,  if  credit  may  be 
attached  to  Theophanes,  Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  and  Nicephorus, 
plied,  on  this  occasion,  his  spiritual  artillery,  and  excommunica- 
ted his  majesty.  He  circulated  apostolic  letters  through  the 
empire,  stimulating  all  to  resist  the  imperial  edict  for  the 
destruction  of  images.  The  Romans,  Italians,  Venetians,  and 
Lombards  flew  to  arms,  in  support  of  the  pontiff' and  their  idols, 
against  their  sovereign,  whom  they  accounted  guilty  of  apostacy 
and  a  design  of  substituting  Judaism  for  Christianity.  These 
holy  warriors,  who  contended  for  the  faith  which  was  idolatry, 
overthrew  Leo's  statues,  rejected  his  authority,  withheld,  at 
Gregory's  command,  the  public  revenue,  elected  a  new  magis- 
tracy, and  finally  separated  Ravenna,  Venice,  Pentapolis,  and 
the  Roman  dukedom  from  the  imperial  dominions.2 

Ecclesiastical  was  mingled  with  military  war,  and  the  fulmi- 
nations  of  councils  with  the  tangible  logic  of  the  legions.  Gre- 
gory the  Second,  in  726,  assembled  a  Roman  synod,  consisting 
of  the  neighbouring  bishops.  His  holiness  presided  in  person, 
and  opened  the  convention  with  a  speech  fraught  with  silly 
sophistry.  The  assembled  prelacy,  as  in  duty  bound,  acquies- 

1  Theoph.  272.  ^  Alex.  14.  68.    Baron.  An.  726.    Pagi.  Brev.  528.    Maimb.  282. 

2  Gregoire  disoit  aux  peuples  qu'ils  ne  pouvoient  en  conscience  payer  des  tribute 
I  un  prince  heretique.    Vertot,  13.  Giannou,  V.  $•  2.   Bruy.  1.  520.    Lib.  Pon.  156. 


476  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

ced  in  his  infallibility's  dialectics,  and  issued  an  enactment 
enjoining  image-worship,  and  denouncing  iconoclasm,  as  pes- 
tilence and  heresy.  Gregory  the  Third  followed  his  predeces- 
sor's example.  His  holiness,  in  732,  headed  a  Roman  synod 
of  ninety-three  bishops,  who  issued  a  constitution  establishing 
the  apostolic  practice  of  symbolical  worship,  and  denouncing 
the  profane  atrocity  of  Iconoclasm.1 

These  western  synods,  superintended  by  the  Roman  pontiff, 
were  opposed  by  an  eastern,  sanctioned  by  the  Byzantine 
patriarch  and  the  Grecian  emperor.  Leo  had  designed  a 
general  council  for  the  decision  of  this  point,  which  had  excited 
such  commotions  through  Christendom.  This,  however,  was 
opposed  by  the  pope  and  finally  relinquished:  Constantine,  his 
son  and  successor,  having  subdued  the  Saracens,  Bulgarians, 
and  other  Barbarians,  turned  his  attention  to  the  ecclesiastical 
state  of  the  empire.  He  resolved  to  assemble  a  general  council 
for  the  final  settlement  of  the  contested  topic  of  Iconoclasm.  He 
accordingly  summoned  the  eastern  bishops  to  meet  at  Constan- 
tinople, for  the  purpose  of  deciding  the  long-agitated  contro- 
versy. The  metropolitans  were  instructed  to  hold  provincial 
councils  of  their  suffragans  for  discussion,  and  for  the  attainment 
of  information  on  the  subject  of  disputation. 

The  imperial  directions  were  obeyed  ;  and  the  Grecian  pre- 
lacy, to  the  amount  of  338,  met  at  Constantinople  in  the  year 
754.  Anastasius  being  dead,  Theodosius  exarch  of  Asia,  and 
Postillus  metropolitan  of  Pamphilia  presided  :  and  the  assem- 
bled fathers  were  left  free  of  all  imperial  control.  The  session 
lasted  six  months  ;  during  which  time,  the  subject  was  investi- 
gated with  perseverance  and  deliberation.  The  result  was  as 
might  be  expected.  The  council  condemned  both  the  use  and 
the  worship  of  images.  Their  use  was  represented  as  dan- 
gerous and  hurtful.  Their  worship  was  stigmatized  as  the 
invention  of  Satan,  the  sin  of  idolatry,  and  the  restoration  of 
paganism  under  the  name  of  Christianity.  The  adoration  of 
images,  the  Byzantine  Synod  pronounced  blasphemy.  Depo- 
sition was  pronounced  against  the  clergy,  and  excommunication 
against  the  laity,  who  should  be  guilty  of  the  impiety.  This 
decision  was  delivered  as  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  the 
definitions  of  councils,  the  usage  of  the  church,  and  the  faith 
of  the  fathers.  The  chief  fathers,  whom  the  Byzantines  quoted, 
were  Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  Amphilochius,  and  Theodotus.2 

The  abettors  of  emblematic  substitutions  in  the  worship  of 
God  have  made  the  Byzantine  synod  the  mark  of  insult  and 
obloquy.  Damascen  represented  it  as  destitute  of  authority. 

1  Labb.  8.  191.     Bin.  5.  460.     Labb.  8.  217. 
9  Theoph.  285.     Zonaras,  2.  85.     Bruy.  1.  554. 


IMAGE-WORSHIP  CONDEMNED  BY  THE  BYZANTINE  COUNCIL.    477 

The  Niceans  and  monks  accused  it  of  heresy,  Judaism, 
apostacy,  Mahometanism,  and  blasphemy.  Labbeus  calls  it  a 
mad  conventicle :  whilst  Baronius  and  Bellarmine  found  it 
guilty  of  folly,  absurdity,  irreligion,  and  profanity.  The  By- 
zantine fathers,  says  Andilly,  '  worshipped  the  Devil.'  These 
allegations,  however,  are  all  slanders.  The  mutilated  acts  of 
the  assembly  display  decided  evidence  of  sense  and  piety. 
The  Niceans  only  showed  their  weakness  in  their  attempts  to 
confute  its  arguments.  No  good  reason  can  be  alleged  against 
its  universality.  Its  bishops  were  convened  by  the  emperor  : 
arid  were  free  and  unanimous.  The  patriarchs  of  Rome, 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  did  not  indeed  assist 
either  in  person  or  by  delegation.  But  the  Roman  pontiff 
assisted  neither  by  personal  or  deputed  authority  in  the  second 
and  fifth  general  councils.  The  patriarchs  of  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  were  under  the  control  of  the  Saracens, 
and,  in  consequence,  prevented  from  attending  the  Byzantine 
synod.  But  the  Caliphs,  in  the  same  manner,  hindered  these 
dignitaries  from  appearing  in  the  second  Nicene  council,  which, 
nevertheless,  was  in  the  end  vested  with  the  honour  of  cecu- 
menicity.1 

The  emperor,  having  by  rigour  and  severity  repressed  the 
opposition  of  the  monks,  who  were  the  great  patrons  of  this 
superstition,  and,  in  the  end,  suppressed  the  whole  lazy  order, 
succeeded  in  establishing  the  enactments  of  the  Byzantine 
assembly  and  restoring  the  purity  of  Christian  worship.  Idol- 
atry fled  from  the  sanctuary  of  the  church  and  retired  to  the 
caves  of  the  wilderness.  Andilly  complains  that  '  the  whole 
world  had  embraced  the  heresy  of  Iconoclasm.'2  The  oriental 
or  Grecian  communion,  clergy  and  laity,  submitted  to  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan  decisions,  rejected  idols,  and  returned  to  the 
simplicity  of  pristine  purity. 

The  ancient  and  modern  partizans  of  Popery  have  exhausted 
language  in  abusing  the  emperor's  character,  and  contended,  on 
this  topic,  for  the  palm  of  scandal  and  calumny.  Theophanes, 
Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  Baronius,  Alexander,  Petavius,  Maim- 
bourg,  and  Labbeus,  in  their  zeal  for  orthodoxy  and  in  their 
rivalry  of  detestation  to  heresy,  have  compared  Copronymus, 
while  living,  to  Nero,  Domitian,  and  Dioclesian,  and  consigned 
him,  when  dead,  to  unquenchable  fire  in  the  lowest  abyss  of 
perdition.2 

1  Labb.  8.  650.     Andilly,  389.     Labb.  8.  648.     Du  Pin,  2.  36.     Alex.  14.  688. 
"  Tout  le  raoude  avoit  embrasse  cette  heresie.     Andilly.  413. 
3IIvpt  afl/SsffT'tt  jtaptSoOyv.     Theophan.  300. 

Ad  quse  migraret  supplicia  non  obscure  monstravit.     Labb.  8.  649. 
.^Eterno  damnatum  incendio.     Petav.   1.  394.     Cedren.  370.     Zonaras,   2.   89. 
Alex.  14.  74.     Andilly,  451. 


478  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

The  emperor  not  only  destroyed  images  and  relics,  but  also 
deprived  saints  of  their  titles.  Paul  and  Peter,  Georgius  and 
Theodoras  were,  by  imperial  authority,  divested  of  saintship. 
The  two  former  were  to  be  denominated  apostles,  and  the  two 
latter,  martyrs  :  and  this  regulation  he  extended  to  the  whole 
canonized  confraternity.  The  mother  of  God  herself  did  not 
escape  the  emperor's  impiety.  He  proscribed  the  invocation, 
intercession,  and  holy-days  of  her  ladyship,  whom  he  repre- 
sented as  destitute  of  all  power  either  in  heaven  or  on  earth. 
He  would  not  even  allow  a  petition  to  be  preferred,  or  a  holy 
day  kept,  in  honour  of  the  queen  of  heaven.  This,  which  Alex- 
ander calls  execrable  blasphemy,  was,  to  be  sure,  a  shocking 
sin  and  a  pestilent  heresy,  for  which  his  name  deserved  to  be 
consigned  to  ignominy  and  his  soul  to  Satan. 

The  accession  of  Constantine  and  Irene,  who  succeeded  Leo 
and  Copronymus,  diversified  Christendom  with  another  variation 
from  Iconoclasm  to  idolatry.  Irene,  who  during  Constantine's 
minority  executed  the  imperial  power,  was  the  patroness  and 
protector  of  emblematical  adoration.  This  women  possessed 
the  ambition  of  Lucifer  and  the  malignity  of  a  demon.  Many 
historians  have  accused  her  of  being  instrumental  to  the  murder 
of  her  husband  ;  and  the  circumstances  of  his  death  create 
strong  suspicions.  She  swore  against  the  worship  of  images, 
which  she  revived,  and  therefore  was  guilty  of  perjury.  She 
put  out  the  eyes  of  Nicephorus,  and  amputated  the  tongues  of 
Christopher,  Nicetas,  Anthemus,  and  Eudoxas,  Constantino's 
sons,  for  suspicion  of  conspiracy.  She  destroyed  the  eyes  of 
her  own  son  with  such  barbarity,  that,  according  to  Theophanes, 
he  expired  in  agony.  The  sun,  avenging  the  deed  of  cruelty, 
continued,  say  the  Greek  historians,  to  withhold  his  rays  for 
seventeen  days  ;  while  ships,  deprived  of  light,  wandered  on 
the  darkened  ocean.  Heaven,  says  Moreri,  felt  a  horror  at 
the  work  of  inhumanity.  An  ambiguity  in  Theophanes 
deceived  some  moderns,  whose  error  has  been  adopted  by  the 
credulity  of  Popery  and  copied  by  the  zeal  of  Protestantism. 
The  son  of  Irene,  blinded  indeed  by  the  maternal  tenderness 
of  his  parent,  survived  many  years,  oppressed  by  the  court  and 
forgotten  by  the  world.  *  No  woman,'  says  Bruys,  •'  was  ever 
less  worthy  of  life  than  this  princess.'  *  Her  ambition,'  says 
Godeau,  *  made  her  violate  all  the  laws  of  God  and  man.'1 
These  accomplishments  fitted  the  empress  for  the  agency  of 
Satan  in  the  restoration  of  idolatry.  She  was  worthy  of  the 
task  which  she  undertook  and  executed. 

Many,  indeed,  both  Greeks  and  Latins,  have  praised  Irene's 

i  Zonaras,  2.  85,  95.  Theoph.  317  Peatav.  1.  396.  Moreri,  5.  168.  Bray.  1 
606.  Godeau,  5.  649. 


IMAGE- WORSHIP    PATRONIZED    BY    IRENE.  479 

purity,  zeal,  piety,  and  constancy.  Theodoras  and  Theophanes 
extol  her  virtue  and  excellence.  The  Greeks  placed  her 
among  the  saints  in  their  menology  ;  and,  in  holy  festivity,  cele- 
brate her  anniversary.  Hartmann  and  Binius,  in  more  modern 
times,  flatter  her  prudence  and  piety.  Alexander  lauds  '  her 
religion  and  laith,  as  worthy  of  immortal  honour,'  though  her 
ambition  and  the  blinding  of  her  son,  he  admits,  l  exposed  her 
to  reprehension.'  Andilly  eulogizes  '  the  virtue  and  devotion 
of  this  princess,  who  soared  above  the  weakness  of  her  sex, 
and  restored  the  church  to  its  primeval  beauty.'  Baronius 
justifies  '  the  assassination  of  her  son.'  He  commends  '  the 
inhumanity  which  arose  from  zeal  for  religion.'  The  annalist 
even  dares,  in  shocking  and  blasphemous  misapplication,  to 
abuse  scriptural  language  in  support  of  the  atrocity.1 

The  empress,  in  the  prosecution  of  her  plan,  began  with  an 
act,  which  in  itself  may  be  commendable,  but  which,  in  Irene 
as  afterward  in  the  papist,  James  II.  king  of  England,  was 
only  an  ostensible  step  to  the  accomplishment  of  a  secret  design, 
destructive  in  the  end  of  the  pretended  project.  She  proclaimed 
liberty  of  conscience  to  all  her  subjects,  which,  in  this  deceiver, 
was  only  preparatory  to  the  total  destruction  of  all  freedom  of 
worship.  She  next,  in  furtherance  of  her  scheme,  promoted 
Tarasius  her  secretary,  who  was  devoted  to  idols,  and  who 
possessed  resolution  and  address,  but  a  layman,  to  the  patri- 
archal dignity.  She  summoned  a  general  council  for  the 
settlement  of  the  controversy  and  the  restoration  of  peace. 
Adrian,  the  Roman  pontiff,  delegated  two  sacerdotal  represen- 
tatives of  his  holiness.  The  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  Antioch. 
and  Jerusalem,  oppressed  by  the  Sara.cens,  could  attend  neithei 
in  person  nor  by  representation.  But  two  vagabond  monks, 
without  any  commission,  assumed  for  the  occasion  their  autho- 
rity^ though  undeputed,  say  Baronius  and  Godeau,  by  these 
oriental  prelates.2  The  bishops,  amounting  to  three  hundred, 
met  at  Nicsea,  and  were  all  from  the  eastern  empire,  which, 
owing  to  the  incursions  of  the  Saracens  and  the  separation  of 
the  western  provinces,  was  exceedingly  contracted.  No 
bishops  attended  from  Africa,  Italy,  France,  Spain,  Germany, 
or  Britain. 

The  council,  after  its  convention,  soon  despatched  the  busi- 
ness for  which  it  had  assembled.  Eighteen  days  of  uproar  and 

m 

1  Mulier  prudentissima  et  religiosa.     Hartmann,  in  JEt&t.  VI. 
Religione  et  pietate  florentissima  mulier.     Bin.  5.  583. 
Aifrtpjrtsv  fufffj3fta.     Theoph.  273.     Launoy,  4.  227. 

Ob  religiooem,  fidem,  et  pietatem,  immortali  laude  digna  Irene.  Alex.  14.  413. 
Andilly,  451.  Spoil.  797.  1. 

2  Les   patriarches   ne   les   avoient  pas   proprement   deputez.     Godeau,  5.  597. 
Baron.  Ann.  785.    Theophanes,  309.     Platina,  107.     Bin.  6.  151.     Crabb.  2.  45& 


480  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

cursing,  ended  in  a  definition  of  faith  in  favour  of  idolatry. 
Painted,  woven,  and  sculptured  images  of  Jesus,  Mary,  angels, 
saints,  prophets,  apostles,  martyrs,  and  all  holy  men,  were, 
according  to  the  Nicene  enactment,  to  be  erected  in  churches, 
houses,  and  highways ;  on  walls,  tablets,  holy  vestments,  and 
sacred  vessels ;  and  these  were  to  be  worshipped  not  with  sove- 
reign but  honorary  adoration.  The  person  who  should  dissent, 
was,  if  an  ecclesiastic,  to  be  deposed,  and,  if  a  layman,  to  be  ex- 
communicated. This  definition,  which  the  good  bishops  in  loud 
vociferation  declared  to  be  the  faith  of  the  apostles,  the  fathers, 
and  the  church,  was  signed  by  the  council,  the  empress,  and 
afterward  by  pope  Adrian. 

The  sacred  synod,  having  issued  this  Christian  definition,  had 
only  one  other  duty  to  perform.  This  consisted  in  the  cere- 
mony of  the  parting  benediction.  The  holy  fathers,  on  this  as 
on  similar  occasions,  always  concluded  their  sessions  with  be- 
stowing their  blessing  in  very  evangelical  terms,  on  all  who 
should  have  the  assurance  to  reject  their  infallible  authority. 
This  benediction  consisted  in  an  anthem  of  execrations,  not 
indeed  sung  but  shouted  in  concert,  and  in  deafening  yells,  against 
all  who  should  deny  or  oppose  their  oracular  decisions.1  "  Curs- 
ed," roared  the  holy  men,  "  cursed  be  all  who  do  not  salute, 
honour,  venerate,  worship,  and  adore  the  holy  images.  Cursed 
be  they  who  call  images  idols.  Cursed  be  all  those  who 
dissent.  Cursed  be  all  who  gainsay.  Cursed  be  all  Iconoclasts. 
Cursed  be  all  who  hold  communion  with  Iconoclasts."  The 
holy  men  certainly  showed  themselves  adepts  in  the  Christian 
accomplishment  of  cursing,  and  delivered  their  maledictions 
with  wonderful  freedom  and  precision.  The  infallible  fathers, 
whatever  might  have  been  their  skill  in  theology,  were  masters 
in  the  art  of  launching  imprecations.  It  was  well  they  did  not 
burst  their  precious  lungs  in  pronouncing  these  anathemas. 
Their  shoulders,  after  being  delivered  from  such  a  load  of 
denunciations,  must  have  felt  relieved,  light,  and  easy.2 

The  Nicene  council  was  an  intriguing  cabal  of  knaves  and 
superstitionists.  '  Its  acts,'  says  Gibbon,  '  remain  a  curious 
monument  of  superstition  and  ignorance,  of  falsehood  and 
folly.'  The  French  king  and  prelacy,  in  the  Caroline  Books, 
pronounced  the  Nicene  assembly  destitute  of  eloquence  and 
common  sense.  JF\\e  eighteen  general  councils  indeed  are  so 
many  instances  of  human  perversity.  But  the  Niceans,  in  this 
respect,  seemed  to  have  eclipsed  all  their  predecessors  and 
successors,  and  to  have  fairly  carried  away  the  palm  of  credu- 
lity, ignorance,  jargon,  and  knavery.  Partial  as  weak,  the 

J  Caron.  490.     Crabb.  2.  599.     Bruy.  1.  584.     Mabillon,  2.  280. 
*  Crabb.  2.  605.     Bin.  5.  722.    Caron,  401.     Labb.  8.  1226 


PROCEEDINGS    OF    THE    SECOND    NICENE     COUNCIL.         481 

Nicene  fathers  were  the  mere  tools  of  a  superstitious  empress, 
and  were  assembled  not  to  examine  but  to  dogmatize,  not  to 
try  the  cause,  but  to  pronounce  sentence.  Their  decision 
denoted  '  a  foregone  conclusion.'  The  council  were  the  passive 
creatures  of  an  arbitrary  and  wicked  woman,  and  submitted 
with  crouching  imbecility  to  imperial  dictation.1 

The  Byzantine  and  Nicene  councils  of .  the  Greeks  were 
rejected  by  all  the  Latins,  except  the  Italians,  and  exhibit  in 
striking  colours  the  diversity  of  Romanism.  The  Greeks  were 
divided  into  two  factions,  the  Iconolatrians  and  the  Iconoclasts. 
The  former  were  devoted  to  the  use  and  worship  of  images  : 
both  of  which  the  latter  rejected.  The  Iconolatrians  bowed  to 
the  decision  of  the  Nicene  Synod  sanctioned  by  Irene ;  and  the 
Iconoclasts  submitted  to  the  Constantinopolitan  council  sanc- 
tioned by  Constantine.  The  Latins,  except  the  mere  creatures 
of  the  pope,  patronized  a  third  system,  and  admitted  the  use 
of  painted  and  sculptured  representations,  but  deprecated  their 
adoration.  These  steered  a  middle  course  between  the  adora- 
tion and  the  destruction  of  the  portrait  and  the  statue,  which 
they  admitted  into  the  temple,  not  as  objects  of  worship,  but  as 
ornaments  of  the  sanctuary,  and  memorials  of  devotion  and 
history.  This  system,  which  is  a  medium  between  the  worship 
and  abolition  of  symbolical  substitutions,  was  adopted  in 
France,  Germany,  Spain,  and  England.2  This  appears  from 
the  opposition  of  the  Caroline  Books,  the  English  clergy,  and 
the  Frankibrdian  and  Parisian  councils. 

The  Caroline  Books,  which  were  the  composition  of  the 
French  clergy  in  the  name  of  the  French  monarch  Charle- 
magne, who  published  the  work  as  his  own  production,  depre- 
cated Iconoclasm  and  Iconolatrianism,  and  censured  the 
Byzantine  and  Nicene  councils.  The  imperial  critic  and  theo- 
logian arraigned  the  Byzantines  for  ignorance  and  temerity,  in 
confounding  images  with  idols,  and  banishing  these  ornaments 
of  the  temple,  these  memorials  of  piety,  and  helps  of  instruc- 
tion.3 

The  royal  disputant,  however,  stigmatized  the  Niceans  with 
the  deepest  marks  of  reprehension.  He  disclaimed  their 
authority,  and  deprecated,  in  the  strongest  terms,  their  anathe- 
mas and  errors.  He  called  the  Nicene  council  the  false  synod 
of  the  Greeks,  and  ridiculed  its  assumed  universality  as  a.  mere 
dotage  :  while  he  exposed  the  madness  of  their  imprecations 
against  all  who  rejected  their  superstition.  These  observations, 
the  Western  emperor  accompanied  with  many  cutting  reflec- 

i  Gibbon,  9.  145.     Du  Pin,  2.  39. 

8  Dan  2.  79.     Moreri,  4.  171.     Alex.  14.  750.     Du  Pin,  2.  43 

3  Lib.  Carol.  1.  1.     Du  Pin,  2.  39.     Velly.  1.  438. 

31 


482  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

tions  on  the  Eastern  empress  and  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  who 
had  patronized  the  impiety. 

The  French  sovereign  refuted  all  the  arguments  of  the  Nice- 
ans,  and  proscribed  all  image-worship  of  every  description. 
He  condemned  this  kind  of  adoration  in  all  its  forms ;  whether 
denominated  veneration,  worship,  salutation,  honour,  homage, 
or  invocation  :  while,  in  diametrical  opposition  to  the  Nicene 
definition,  he  prohibited  the  lighting,  incensing,  and  kissing  of 
these  senseless  productions  of  the  pencil  or  chisel.  The  sove- 
reign, in  direct  opposition  to  the  holy  oecumenical  assembly  of 
Nicea,  interdicted  the  honouring  of  images  even  with  relative 
worship,  or  the  veneration  due  under  the  Jewish  establishment 
to  the  ark,  or  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  to  the  Bible. 
Image- worship,  in  all  its  forms,  he  characterized  as  superfluity, 
superstition,  vanity,  sacrilege,  and  superlative  absurdity.1 

The  opposition  to  the  Nicene  council,  in  the  Caroline  Books, 
has  been  acknowledged  by  all  the  candid  critics  of  Romanism; 
such  as  Daniel,  Du  Pin,  Moreri,  Bruys,  and  Mabillon.  The 
Caroline  Books,  says  Daniel,  *  represent  the  Nicene  convention 
as  the  object  of  execration,  and  turn  all  its  arguments  into  ridi- 
cule.'2 Similar  statements  are  found  in  Du  Pin,  Moreri,  Bruys, 
Mabillon,  and  many  other  historians. 

These  statements  are  corroborated  by  the  admission  of  those 
who  deny  the  genuineness  of  the  Caroline  Books,  such  as 
Bellarmine,  Surius,  Sanderus,  and  Alan.8  These  critics 
account  the  Caroline  publication  a  forgery,  composed  by  some 
friend  of  Iconoclasm  and  transmitted  by  Charlemagne  to 
Adrian  for  refutation.  The  insinuation  of  forgery  has  been 
amply  confuted  by  Alexander  and  Juenin  ;  and  is  now  aban- 
doned. But  the  patrons  of  this  opinion  grant,  that  the  design 
and  tendency  of  the  imperial  production  was  to  overthrow  the 
Nicene  council  and  symbolical  worship. 

The  Nicene  council,  rejected  in  this  manner  by  the  French, 
was  also  disclaimed  by  the  English.  Offa,  king  of  the  Mer- 
cians, transmitted  a  copy  of  its  acts  to  the  British  clergy,  who, 
according  to  Hoveden  and  Westminister,  condemned  its  defini- 
tion as  contrary  to  the  faith,  and  worthy  of  execration  by  the 
whole  church  of  God.4  Alcuin,  at  the  instance  of  the  English 

1  Lib.  Carol.  11.  21,  23,  24,  25,  28,  29,  30.     Juenin,  4.  396.    Alex.  14.  691,737. 
Bruy.  1.  586.     Du  Pin,  2.  40. 

2  Dans  cet  ouvrage  le  concile  de  Nicee  tenu  centre  lesBrises-images  est  repre- 
sente  comme  un  objet  d'execration,  une  affectation  de  tourner  en  ridicule  toutea 
les  preuves  du  dogma.     Dan.  2.  81. 

3  Bell.  II.  15.     Sand.  II.  5. 

4  Omnino  ecclesi£  Dei  execratur.    Hoveden,  Ann.  792.    West.  Ann.  793.   Alex 
14.  739.     8pelm.  1.  308. 

Contempserunt  atque  consentientes  condemnaverunt.  Labb.  9.  101.  Alex.  14 
205. 


THE  SECOND  NICENE  COUNCIL  CONDEMNED  AT  FRANKFORT.    483 

episcopacy,  confuted  the  Nicene  dogma  on  scriptural  authority, 
in  a  work  which  was  afterward  presented  in  their  name  to 
Charlemagne  the  French  king. 

The  Nicene  council,  disclaimed  in  this  manner  by  the  French 
and  British  clergy,  was,  in  794,  condemned  at  Frankfort,  by 
the  whole  Western  prelacy.  This  synod  was  assembled  by 
the  Western  emperor  from  all  Italy,  France,  Germany,  Spain, 
and  England,  and  consisted  of  three  hundred  bishops  with  the 
Roman  pontiff's  vicars  Theophylact  and  Stephen.  The 
Frankfordian  council,  Baronius  admits,  was,  from  its  numbers 
and  the  presidency  of  the  papal  legates,  called  plenary  or 
general.1 

Its  second  canon  condemned  the  definition  of  the  second  Nicene 
council  on  the  worship  of  images.  The  Frankfordians  called 
the  Nicene,  the  Byzantine  council,  because  it  began  and  ended 
at  Constantinople.  In  order  to  reconcile  the  jarring  councils, 
Alan,  Valentia,  Vasquez,  and  Binius,  have  alleged  that 
the  fathers  of  Frankfort  condemned,  not  the  assembly  under 
Irene  in  favour  of  image-worship,  but  the  synod  under  Con- 
stantine  in  favour  of  Iconoclasm.  But  the  supposition  is  un- 
founded, and,  at  the  present  day,  is  rejected  by  the  ablest 
popish  critics.  The  Frankfordian  canon  condemns  emblematic 
adoration ;  and  therefore  is  in  direct  hostility  to  the  Nicene 
definition.  This  condemnation  of  the  Niceans  by  the  Frank- 
fordians was  maintained  by  all  the  contemporary  historians, 
and  has  been  admitted  by  all  the  papal  authors  possessing 
any  candour  till  the  present  day.  The  fact  is  attested  by 
Eginhard,  Hincmar,  Adhelm,  Ado,  Conrad,  Regino,  Aimon, 
Herman,  and  Aventinus,  as  well  as  by  Mabillon,  Bellarmine, 
Velly,  Platina,  Baronius,  Perron,  Cassander,  Moreri,  and  Du 
Pin.2  *  The  second  canon  of  Frankfort,  says  Mabillon,  '  was 
enacted  against  the  Byzantine  or  Nicene  Synod  of  the  Greeks, 
which  the  French,  at  that  time,  did  not  account  universal, 
because  it  was  composed  of  the  Orientals  and  not  yet  received 
by  the  Westerns.'  According  to  Bellarmine,  '  image- worship 
and  the  sixth  general  council  were  proscribed  at  Frankfort.' 
The  Frankfordians,  says  Velly,  *  unanimously  rejected  the 
authority  and  universality  of  the  second  Nicean  assembly.' 
The  statements  of  Platina,  Baronius,  Perron,  Cassander,  Moreri, 
and  Du  Pin,  are  similar  to  those  of  Mabillon,  Bellarmine,  and 
Velly. 

1  Bin.  6.  184.     Labb.  9.  57.     Spon.  704.  III. 

*  Secundus  est  contra  novara  synodum  Graecorum  Constantinopoli  habitam,  id 
est,  contra  secundam  Nicaenam,  quam  Galli  tune  pro  universal!  haberi  non  ferebat. 
Mabillon,  2.  311.  In  synodo  Franc  ofordiensi  esse  definitum  ut  imagines  non  ado- 
rentur.  Bellarmin,  II.  14.  Les  peres  de  Francfort  le  rejettereut  d'un  consente- 
ment  unanime  et  defenderent  de  le  regarder  comme  (Ecumenique.  Velly,  1.  438. 
,  5.  635.  Alex.  14.  730,  732.  Platina,  107.  Bin.  6.  186.  Moreri,  4.  171. 
31* 


484  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY 

The  Frankfordians,  besides  condemning  the  Niceans,  *  pro- 
hibited ail  kinds  of  image  worship,'  without  any  exception  or 
limitation.1  The  assembly,  in  the  second  canon,  interdicted 
this  kind  of  homage,  '  in  all  its  forms,'  whether  denominated 
respect,  honour,  invocation,  worship,  or  adoration.  One  indeed 
can  hardly  help  feeling  some  pity  for  Baronius,  Alexander, 
Maimbourg,  Pagius,  and  Juenin,  in  their  attempts  to  elude  the 
unqualified  and  unsparing  prohibition  contained  in  this  unyield- 
ing and  unmanageable  canon.  The  Frankfordian  council  also 
adopted  and  sanctioned  the  Caroline  Books,  which  had  proscribed 
every  species  of  symbolical  adoration.  The  Caroline  Books 
besides  had  approved  the  sentiments  of  Gregory  the  Great,  who, 
in  his  epistle  to  Serenus,  had  denounced  every  description  of 
image-worship.  The  language  of  the  pontiff,  the  emperor,  and 
the  council  on  these  occasions  is  so  clear  and  unambiguous  as 
to  defy  all  the  efforts  of  evasion  and  chicanery. 

The  Frankfordian  council  was  followed  by  the  Parisian  synod 
under  Lewis  in  825.  This  assembly  met  at  the  suggestion  of 
Michael  the  Grecian  emperor,  by  permission  of  Eugenius  the 
Roman  pontiff,  and  by  the  authority  of  Lewis  the  French  king. 
Michael  sent  a  solemn  embassy  to  Lewis,  requesting  his  inter- 
ference with  Eugenius  for  the  settlement  of  the  protracted  divi- 
sions respecting  emblematic  worship.  Lewis  interposed  his 
influence,  and  endeavoured  to  engage  Eugenius  against  the  new 
idolatry,  but  without  success.  The  Roman  hierarch,  however, 
granted  the  French  prelacy  the  liberty  of  assembling  for  the 
examination  of  the  controversy.  A  synod  therefore  met  at 
Paris  in  825,  and  consisted  of  the  most  learned  and  judicious 
of  the  French  clergy ;  such  as  Agobard,  Jeremy,  Jonas,  Fre- 
culf,  Theodomir,  Amalarius,  and  Dungal.2 

The  sacred  synod,  assembled  in  consultation,  decided  against 
the  Roman  pontiff,  the  Nicene  council,  and  symbolical  adora- 
tion. The  Parisians,  it  must  be  confessed,  treated  Adrian, 
God's  vicar-general,  with  very  little  ceremony.  The  French 
episcopacy,  in  Daniel's  statement,  '  spoke  of  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff, as  well  as  of  the  Nicene  council,  with  the  utmost  contempt;' 
and  had  the  assurance,  according  to  Bruys,  Labbeus,  and 
Alexander,  to  charge  his  infallibility  with  ignorance,  supersti- 
tion, impertinence,  indiscretion,  absurdity,  falsehood,  impiety, 
error,  obstinacy,  and  opposition  to  the  truth.3  This  was  hardly 

1  Sanctissimi  Patres  nostri  omnimodis  adorationem  et  servitutem  renuentes  COD 
tempserunt.     Labb.  9.  101.     Alex.  14.  205.     Juenin.  4.  397. 

2  Mabillon,  2.  495.     Alex.  14.  749.     Bruy.  2.  9. 

3  Us  parloient  avec  beaucoup  de  mepris  de  celle  que  le  Pape  Adrian  I.  avoit 
ecrite  quelques  amices  auparavant  a   1'lmperatrice  Irene.     Us  ne  traitoient  pag 
mieux  le  second  concile  de  Nicee,  et  1'ouvrage  que  le  meme  Pape  avoit  fait  pour 
le  defeudre  centre  les  Livres  Carotins.     Dan.  2.  211. 


DECREE    OF    THE     PARISIAN    COUNCIL.  485 

civil  to  the  head  of  the  church,  and  is  calculated  to  convey  no 
high  opinion  of  French  politeness  in  the  ninth  century. 

The  Parisian  assembly  censured  the  holy,  infallible,  Nicene 
synod  with  equal  freedom.  The  Niceans,  these  refractory 
Parisians  found  guilty  of  presumption,  ignorance,  error,  and 
superstition.  The  Grecian  council  also,  according  to  these 
French  critics,  tortured  revelation  and  tradition  to  extort  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  emblematic  adoration.  The  Nicene 
definition  was  represented  as  contrary  to  reason,  revelation, 
and  tradition  :  and  many  passages,  in  proof  of  this  allegation, 
were  collected  from  the  fathers  and  other  ecclesiastical  monu- 
ments. The  Caroline  Books  against  the  Nicene  council  and 
sculptured  adoration  were  approved  and  sanctioned.1  The 
French  clergy,  it  seems,  were  insensible  to  Nicene  infallibility. 

The  French  convention,  in  unequivocal  language,  condemned 
image  worship,  and  in  very  unflattering  terms,  *  traced  the 
origin  of  this  pestilential  superstition  in  Italy  to  ignorance  and 
the  wickedest  custom.'  The  Parisian  prelacy  would  allow 
this  plague  no  better  origin  than  Roman  and  Italian  usage, 
ignorance,  and  atrocity.  The  likeness  of  the  saint,  they 
described  as  unworthy  of  adoration,  and  inferior  to  the  cross 
and  the  holy  vessels  of  the  sanctuary.2 

The  Latins,  in.  this  manner,  through  Germany,  France,  Spain, 
England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  rejected  the  new  form  of  idola- 
try. The  French,  in  particular,  resisted  the  novelty  with 
firmness  and  freedom.  This,  in  consequence,  Sirmond  called 
the  French  heresy.  The  impugners  of  the  superstition  in 
France,  Mezeray  describes  as  superior  in  number  and  erudition. 
Daniel,  following  Mezeray,  represents  the  innovation  as  depre- 
cated by  the  more  numerous  and  learned  of  the  French  nation. 
These,  in  the  strongest  language,  denounced  the  adoration  of 
images ;  though,  steering  a  middle  course  between  their  wor- 
ship and  abolition,  they  permitted  their  use  for  the  ornament  of 
temples,  the  instruction  of  spectators,  and  the  encouragement 
of  devotion. 

Us  jugerent  impies  les  responses  du  Pape.  II  y  a  certaines  choses,  qu'il  y  a 
appose  a  la  verite.  Bruy.  2.  9,  10. 

Ignoranter  in  eodem  facto  a  recto  tamite  deviaverit.  Indiscrete  fecisse  in  eo 
quod  superstittose  eas  adorari  jussit.  Labb.  9.  645,  446. 

Eum  inseruisse  in  eadam  epistola  quaedam  testimonia  Patrum  valde  absona,  et 
ad  rem  de  tua  agebatur  minime  pertinentia.  Alex.  14.  749. 

1  Us  passerent  jusque  a  condamner  le  septieme  synode.     Godea.  6.  65 

Isti  non  mediocriter  erraverunt.  Qusedam  Scripturarum  testimonia  et  Patrum 
dicta  ad  suum  superstitiosum  errorem  confirmandum  violenter  sumpserunt  eteidera 
suo  operi  incompetenter  aptaverunt.  Alex.  14.  749.  Us  approuverent  la  censure 
que  Charlemagne  avoit  faite  duconcile  de  Nicee  dans  les  Livres  Carolins.  Bruy.  2.  9. 

2  II  ne  falloit  point  permettre  le  culte  des  images.     Mezeray,  1.    409.     Partim 
veritatis  ignorantia,  partim  pessimae  consuetudinis  usu,  hujus  superstitionis  pestis 
in  ipsa  etiam  Italia  inolevisset.     Alex.  14  750.     Juenin,  4.  394.  412. 


486  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Charlemagne,  Agobard,  Jonas  and  Walafrid,  in  particular, 
resisted  the  novelty  with  distinguished  ability.  This  has  been 
stated  in  clear  terms  by  Godeau,  Mabillon,  and  Mezeray. 
Godeau  remarks  that  the  French  king  wrote  a  work  against  this 
kind  of  worship  to  Pope  Adrian.  The  Caroline  Books  also 
were  pointed  against  the  rising  superstition.  Agobard,  Arch- 
bishop of  .Lyons,  acted  a  distinguished  part  in  the  controversy. 
This  prelate,  Mabillon  observes,  recommended  the  destruction 
of  images  rather  than  their  adoration.  This  description  of 
homage,  even  when  relative,  Agobard,  says  Godeau,  *  declared 
a  violation  of  the  faith,  a  change  of  forms  rather  than  a  renun- 
ciation of  idols,  and  an  act  inconsistent  with  the  sincere  worship 
of  God.'  Jonas,  bishop  of  Orleans,  according  to  this  historian, 
*  entertained  the  same  opinion.'  Mezeray  delivers  the  same 
account  of  Jonas  and  Agobard,  and  relates  their  hostility  to 
the  new  mode  of  worship.  Walafrid,  though  more  moderate, 
avowed,  on  this  topic,  similar  sentiments.  The  French, 
Mabillon  grants,  *  persisted  in  this  system  till  the  end  of  the 
ninth  century.'1 

Such  was  the  hostility  in  the  West  against  image- worship. 
Its  destiny,  in  the  East,  was  less  uniform.  The  propagation  of 
the  impiety  among  the  Greeks,  with  whom  it  originated,  was, 
for  half  a  century  after  as  well  as  before  the  Nicene  council,  at- 
tended with  many  vicissitudes  and  variations.  The  Empress 
Irene  had,  during  the  minority  of  her  son  Constaritine,  estab- 
lished the  superstition  by  an  ecclesiastical  decision,  which  she 
supported  by  civil  enactments.  Idolatry,  in  consequence,  gained 
a  temporary  triumph.  The  victory,  however,  was  transitory. 
Constantine,  on  obtaining  a  shadow  of  power,  proceeded,  says 
Platina,  to  repeal  the  synodal  and  imperial  laws  in  favour  of 
emblematic  worship.  But  Constantine's  authority  was  also 
temporary.  The  orthodox  mother  deprived  the  heretical  son 
of  his  power  and  his  eyes  :  and,  by  these  means,  restored  the 
painted,  woven,  and  sculptured  gods  to  all  their  glory.  Their 
adoration,  however,  was  destined  soon  to  experience  another 
revolution.  Irene,  the  tender  parent  and  pious  empress,  depar- 
ted, and  was  enrolled  as  a  saint  in  the  firmament  of  Grecian 
Menology,  in  which,  to  the  present  day,  she  shines  as  a  star 
of  the  first  magnitude.  Nicephorus,  her  successor,  allowed  a 
general  liberty  of  worship,  which,  according  to  the  monks, 


1  Plusieurs  et  des  plus  doctes,  entre  autre  Jonas  d'Orleans  et  Agobard  de  Lyon, 
ne  pouvoient  suffrir  qu'on  adora  lea  image.  Mezeray,  1.  409.  Plusieurs  etoit 
d'avis  qu'ne  falloit  point  leur  rendre  de  culte.  Ce  parti,  qui  tenoit  le  milieu  entre 
1'adoration  et  1'abolition  des  images,  paroit  avoir  et6  celui  de  plus  graude  partie 
des  scavans  de  France  et  de  la  cour.  Daniel,  2.  79. 

Charlemagne  envoya  un  Livre  centre  le  culte  des  images  au  Pape.     Godea.   5. 


VARIATIONS    IN    THE    EAST    ON    IMAGE-WORSHIP.  487 

caused  his  temporal  and  eternal  perdition.1  Michael's  reign 
was  marked  by  superstition  and  idolatry ;  whilst  the  monks 
and  idols  that  he  patronized  were  incapable  of  supporting  their 
votary  on  the  throne. 

The  accession  of  Leo  the  Armenian  again  changed  the  scene. 
He  assembled  a  council  at  Constantinople  in  the  year  814.  This 
synod  approved  and  confirmed  the  Byzantine  conncil,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  condemned  and  anathematized  the  Nicene  con- 
vention. The  emperor,  in  consequence,  was  assailed  with  all 
kinds  of  vituperation  and  obloquy.  A  Byzantine  synod  of  270 
bishops  called  his  majesty  the  harbinger  of  antichrist  and  the 
fiery  oven  of  blasphemy.2  The  imperial  hostility  to  image- 
worship,  these  holy  men  compared  to  the  fury  of  a  lion  roaring 
in  the  forest  for  his  prey. 

Michael,  Leo's  assassin  and  successor,  granted  universal  tole- 
ration, which  he  hoped  would  be  attended  with  general  tran- 
quillity. But  his  clemency  only  provoked  the  insolence  of  the 
faction  that  abetted  idolatry,  who  refused  to  grant  the  liberty 
which  they  claimed.  Their  fury  aroused  imperial  vengeance. 
Michael,  in  821,  called  a  council  to  determine  the  controversy. 
But  the  partizans  of  the  idols,  pretending  that  it  was  unlawful 
for  the  patrons  of  Catholicism  to  meet  the  abettors  of  heresy,  re- 
fused to  attend.  The  emperor  afterward  treated  the  haughty 
faction  with  rigour.  Michael's  timidity,  however,  mitigated  his 
severity.  But  Theophilus,  his  son  and  successor,  regardless  of 
fear  or  pity,  was  the  determined  and  uncompromising  patron  of 
Iconoclasm.  His  energy  restored  tranquillity  to  the  state,  and 
banished  idolatry  in  a  great  measure  from  the  church.  The 
clergy  and  laity  submitted  to  the  imperial  authority ;  while  the 
eastern  and  western  Christians  seemed  again  to  relinguish  idola- 
try.3 The  Grecian  Monks  alone  in  the  east,  and  the  Latin 
pontiff  with  his  immediate  dependants,  continued  to  murmur 
and  support  the  honour  of  the  idols. 

Such  were  the  dissensions  which  raged  in  Christendom,  for 
a  century,  on  image  worship.  This  diversity  has  been  admit- 
ted by  Tarasius,  Adrian,  and  Daniel.4  Tarasius,  the  Byzan- 
tine patriarch  in  784,  lamented  the  schisms  and  divisions  in  the 

612.  Satius  putat  abjicere  et  comminuere.  Mabillon.  2.  614.  Agobard  'sefforce 
de  prouver  qu'il  n'est  point  permis  aux  Chrestiens  d' avoir  des  images  par  lesquelles 
la  foi  est  violee.  Si  les  Chrestiens  etoient  obligez  de  les  houorer  ils  auroient 
plutot  change  des  simulachres  qu'abandonne  les  idoles.  Jonas  eveque  d'Orleans 
fut  de  meme  opinion.  Godeau,  5.  612.  Gallicana  ecclesiain  sua  sententia  perstitit 
usque  ad  finera  saeculi  noni.  Mabillon,  2.  495. 

1  Crabb,  2.  457.     Platina,  107. 

2  Antichrist!  precursor,  cujus  ex  ore  egreditur  igneus   blasphemi«   clibanus. 
Labb.  9.  386,  390.     Bin.  6.  232.     Coss.  1.  781. 

3  Bin.  6.  295.     Coss.  1.  821.     Theod.  II.     Ep.  86. 

4  Video  ecclesiam  scissam  et  divisam,  et  nos  alias  atque  aliter  loquentes,  et  aliter 
eos  Christianos  qui  in  Oriente  unius  nobiscum  sunt  fidei,  sed  et  his  concordantes 


488  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

Christian  Commonwealth.  He  represented  the  Byzantine 
church  as  having  embraced,  on  this  subject,  a  different  system 
from  the  other  oriental  Christians  ;  and  the  result,  he  added, 
was  mutual  anathemas.  Adrian,  the  Roman  pontiff,  declared, 
in  his  letter  to  the  emperor,  that  all  the  eastern  world  on  this 
topic  had  erred,  prior  to  the  accession  of  his  Grecian  majesty. 
Daniel  acknowledges  the  prevalence  of  this  heresy  in  oriental 
Christendom,  as  well  as  in  the  western  communion.  Amidst 
this  diversity,  however,  an  overwhelming  majority,  according 
to  the  confession  of  Tarasius,  Adrian,  and  Daniel,  disclaimed 
the  faith  of  symbolical  worship. 

Image-worship,  after  the  revolutions  of  more  than  a  century, 
was  finally  established  in  the  east  by  the  Empress  Theodora. 
Theophilus  dying,  left  Theodora  his  widow  guardian  of  the  em- 
pire during  the  minority  of  his  son  Michael.  This  delegated 
power,  she  used  for  the  restoration  of  idolatry.  Her  measures 
were  bold,  summary,  and  decisive.  John  the  Byzantine  Patri- 
arch, who  was  an  Iconoclast,  Theodora  deposed  :  and  Me- 
thodius, who  was  an  Iconolatrian,  she  raised  to  the  patriarchal 
dignity.  A  council,  in  842,  was  assembled  at  Constantinople,  in 
which  Iconoclasm  was  condemned,  and  image- worship,  in  all 
its  heathenism,  was  sanctioned.  John,  who  had  been  patri- 
arch, received  200  lashes  for  being  in  the  right.  The  punish- 
ment of  the  patriarch  had  a  happy  effect  on  the  inferior  clergy. 
The  empress  knew  the  proper  argument  for  the  occasion.  The 
logic  of  the  lash  possessed  wonderful  efficacy  in  enlight- 
ening the  episcopal  intellects,  regulating  the  prelatic  consciences, 
and  teaching  the  proselyted  priesthood  the  duty  of  idolatry. 
Many,  who  had  been  the  devoted  friends  of  Iconoclasm, 
changed  their  minds,  and  anathematized,  in  loud  vociferation, 
the  patrons  of  that  heresy.  All,  with  unvarying  unanimity, 
shouted  for  the  restoration  of  the  idols.  The  festival  of  ortho- 
doxy was  instituted  as  a  trophy  of  their  triumph,  and  an 
annual  commemoration  of  their  victory.  A  heresy,  say  the 
historians  of  this  controversy,  was  in  this  manner  suppressed, 
which,  bursting  from  the  portals  of  hell,  had,  for  a  hundred 
and  twenty  years,  raged  against  the  church  of  God.1 

This  superstition  was  imposed  on  Christendom,  not  by  syno- 
dal or  ecclesiastical  authority,  but  by  civil  and  imperial  despo- 
tism. Only  a  despicable  minority  of  the  clergy  had,  on  any 
occasion,  voted  for  the  impiety.  The  Christian  community,  at 
the  accession  of  Constantine  the  first  Christian  emperor,  con- 
sisted, according  to  Paolo,  Holstenius,  and  Bingham,  of  1800 

Occideutales  et  nos  ab  omnibus  illis  alienates  et  per  singulas  dies  anathematizatos 
habere.     Labb.  8.  679.     Theophanes,  308.     Omnis  populus  qui  est  in  Orientalibus 
partibus  erraverunt.    Adrian  ad  Constan.     Labb.  8.  746.     Dan.  2.  214. 
1  Bin.  6.  396.     Labb.  919,  920. 


IDOLATRY    FINALLY    ESTABLISHED    BY    THEODORA.         489 

bishops.  One  thousand  were  Greeks  and  eight  hundred  Latins. 
These  must  have  been  much  increased  under  Theodora  in  the 
ninth  century.  But  the  greatest  number  that,  on  any  occasion, 
voted  for  symbolical  worship,  amounted  only  to  350  in  the 
Nicean  council.  These  were  all  the  ecclesiastical  troops  which 
Irene  could  bring  to  the  field  in  favour  of  her  darling  idolatry ; 
and,  at  a  fair  calculation,  could  amount  only  to  about  a  sixth 
of  the  whole,  and  therefore  only  a  small  minority.  Three 
hundred  and  thirty-eight  Grecian  bishops  under  Constantine, 
voted  for  Iconoclasm :  and  only  the  monks  of  the  east  opposed. 
The  Roman  Pontiff  alone  and  a  few  of  his  mere  creatures  in 
the  west  supported  the  superstition.  All  the  Latins,  these 
excepted,  opposed  the  impiety.  But  the  tendency  of  idolatry 
is  headlong  and  downhill.  Man,  led  by  sense  and  imagination, 
delights  in  a  visible  Deity  or  his  effigy,  before  whom  he  may 
bow  and  prefer  his  adoration.  This  tendency  of  the  human 
mind  prevailed,  and  idols  were  introduced  in  opposition  to 
reason,  revelation,  and  common  sense. 


CHAPTER   XVII. 


PURGATORY. 

ITS  SITUATION  AND  PUNISHMENTS DESTITUTE  OF  SCRIPTURAL  AUTHORITY — ADMIS- 
SIONS  SCRIPTURAL  ARGUMENTS DESTITUTE  OF  TRADITIONAL  AUTHORITY- 
ADMISSIONS PRAYER  FOR  THE  DEAD PAGAN,  JEWISH,  AND  MAHOMETAN  PURGA 

TORY ITS    INTRODUCTION    INTO    THE    CHRISTIAN    COMMUNITY ITS    SLOW  PROGRESS 

COMPLETED    BY    THE    SCHOOLMEN FLORENTINE    COUNCIL TRENTINE    COUNCIL. 

PURGATORY,  in  the  Romish  theology,  is  a  middle  place  or  state, 
in  which  departed  souls  make  expiation  for  venial  faults,  and 
for  the  temporal  punishment  of  mortal  sins.  Romanism  repre- 
sents sin  as  venial  or  mortal,  or,  in  other  terms,  as  trivial  or 
aggravated.  Those  who  depart  this  life  guilty  of  mortal  or  ag- 
gravated sin  go  direct  to  hell,  from  which  there  is  no  redemp- 
tion. Those  who  die  guiltless  of  venial  or  trivial  sins,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  of  the  temporal  penalty  of  aggravated  transgres- 
sion, go  immediately  to  heaven.  But  many,  belonging  to 
neither  of  these  two  classes,  are,  at  the  hour  of  death,  obnoxious 
to  the  penalty  attached  to  venial  faults  and  the  temporal  pains 
of  heinous  iniquity.  These,  in  purgatory,  undergo  the  due 
punishment ;  and,  purified  by  this  means,  are  admitted  into 
heaven.  All  mankind,  says  the  Florentine  council,  consist  of 
saints,  sinners,  and  an  intermediate  class.  Saints  go  to  heaven  ; 
sinners  go  to  hell ;  and  the  middling  class  to  purgatory.1 

Agreed,  in  accordance  with  the  councils  of  Florence  and 
Trent,  on  the  existence  of  a  middle  state,  the  Popish  theologians 
differ  on  the  place  and  medium  of  punishment.  Bellarmine 
reckons  eight  variations  of  opinion  on  its  situation.  Augustine, 
according  to  Bellarmine  and  Aquinas,  divested  this  intermediate 
mansion  of  all  material  locality  :  and  characterized  it  as  a  spiri- 
tual residence  for  spiritual  souls.1  The  middle  receptacle  of 

1  Labb.  18.  533.  et  20.  170.  Crabb.  3.  476,  939.  Bin.  9.  322.  Arsdekin,  1. 
227.  Paolo,  1.  280.  Alex.  9.  352. 

Tria  esse  loca,  mempe,  sanctorum  animas  esse  in  Coelo,  peccatorum  in  inferno. 
Medium  vero  locum  esse  habentium  peccata  venialia.  Labb.  18.  26. 

Ad  purgatorium  deferuntur  justorum  animae,  obnoxiae  pcenis  temporalibus. 
Dens,  7.  347. 

8  Bell.  II.  6.  Aquin.  3.  541.  Certum  est,  purgatorium  esse  aliquem  locum 
corporalem.  Faber,  2.  448. 


SITUATION    OF    PURGATORY.  491 

human  spirits,  the  African  saint  alleged,  is  an  ideal  world.  But 
this  notion,  it  appears,  he  afterwards  retraced. 

Alexander  is  doubtful  whether  the  purgatorial  realms  are  in 
this  world ;  under  the  earth ;  in  the  dark  air  with  devils  ;  in 
the  hell  of  the  damned ;  or  in  its  vicinity.1  Chrysostom,  Gregory 
Nyssen,  and  Furseus,  say  Bellarmine  and  Bede,  place  it  with 
devils  in  the  air  between  heaven  and  earth.  Chrysostom  and 
Gregory  Nyssen  however,  saints  as  they  were,  had  no  oppor- 
tunity beyond  other  mortals  of  ascertaining  the  fact :  nor  was 
the  fiction  invented  in  their  day.  But  Furseus,  in  a  vision, 
saw  the  place  of  expiation  and  therefore  had  a  right  to  know. 

Many  identify  purgatory  with  hell.  The  punishments,  in- 
deed, of  the  former  are  temporary,  while  those  of  the  latter  are 
everlasting.  But  the  situation  and  severity  of  the  pains,  in  the 
idea  of  these  speculators,  are  the  same. 

The  majority,  however,  make  this  earth  the  scene  of  posthu- 
mous expiation.  Gregory  and  Damian,  with  glaring  inconsis- 
tency, lay  the  scene  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  where  con- 
science accuses  or  where  the  criminal  offended.  His  infallibility 
and  his  saintship  could  drill  a  luckless  ghost  in  any  convenient 
place,  such  as  an  icy  stream,  a  warm  bath,  a  flaming  cavern, 
or  a  burning  mountain.  Aquinas  and  Bellarmine  show  a  strong 
inclination  to  the  theory  of  Gregory  and  Damian.2 

The  schoolmen  place  this  intermediate  state  of  punishment 
in  the  bowels  of  the  earth.  The  vast  cavity  in  the  central  region 
of  the  world  is,  according  to  these  theologians,  divided  into  four 
apartments,  which  form  hell,  purgatory,  and  the  limbo  of  infants 
and  of  the  fathers.  The  two  former,  it  appears,  are  in  the  same 
neighbourhood.  Purgatory,  says  Faber,  *  is  on  the  brink  of 
hell.'3  The  prison  of  children  is  raised  above  purgatory,  say  the 
schoolmen  and  Inriocenb  the  Third,  so  that  the  flames  of  the 
latter  come  not  near  the  establishment  of  the  former.4  The 
prison  of  the  fathers  was  left  empty  at  the  descent  of  the  Messiah, 
who  liberated  the  Jewish  saints.  Its  dominions,  therefore,  are 
now  uninhabited,  and  its  cities,  if  it  have  any,  are  useless  and 

1  Utrum  vel  in  hoc  mundo  et  super  terram ;  vel  in  a6re  caliginosa  ubi  dseraones 
versantur,  vel  in  inferno  damnatorum,  vel  in  vicino  terram  subtus  loco.     Alex.  9. 
352.     Beda,  III.  19. 

2  Greg.  Dial.  IV.  40.     Aquin.  3.  544. 

3  Purgatorium  esse  infra  viscera  terrse.     Alex.  9.  352.     Habemus  Purgatorium, 
Infernum,  et  limbos  patrum,  et  puerorum  loca  subterranea  esse.    Infernum  et  pur- 
gatorium  sunt  loco  vicina.     Bell.  II.  6.     Aquin.  III.  69.  VII. 

Est  sub  terra,  vicinus  inferno.  Dens,  7.  353.  Est  sub  terra,  versus  centrum, 
ad  ripam  inferni.  Faber,  2.  448,  449. 

4  Infernum  damnatorum,  secundum  omnes,  est  in  ipsp  centre  terrse.     Ultra  in 
fernum  et  purgatorium  est  et  limbus  puerorum,  et  merit  limbus  sanctorum  patrum. 
Limbus  patrum  erat  remotus  a  centro  et  prope  terram.    Locus  puerorum  est  super 
purgatorium  et  infra  limbum  sanctorum  patruir .     Faber,  2.  449. 


492  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

may  fall  into  ruin.     Purgatory,  in  like  manner,  will,  at  the 
resurrection,  be  evacuated  and  fall  into  similar  dilapidation.1 

Gregory  the  Great,  the  universal  pastor,  sanctioned  this  specu- 
lation by  his  unerring  authority.  Believing  this  place  of  tem- 
porar}'  and  eternal  punishment  to  be  in  the  central  regions  of 
the  earth,  his  infallibility  considered  the  volcanic  eruptions  of 
Vesuvius,  jEtna,  and  Hecla,  as  flames  arising  from  hell  and 
purgatory,  which,  according  to  his  holiness,  lay  in  the  same 
neighbourhood,  in  the  hollow  bosom  of  the  world.  These 
Volcanoes,  said  the  Vicar-General  of  God,  are  an  evidence  of 
the  Mediteranean  position  of  the  purgatorian  prison  and  the 
fiery  punishment  of  its  inhabitants.  Theodoric  the  Arian  kins 
of  the  Goths,  says  the  viceroy  of  heaven,  was,  at  the  hour  oi 
death,  seen  descending  into  a  flaming  gulph  in  Sicily.  Souls, 
says  Surius,  appear  amid  the  conflagration  and  thunders  of 
Hecla,  and  proclaim  their  sufferings  in  the  flaming  fulminations 
of  that  mountain.2 

The  medium  of  punishment  is  uncertain  as  the  situation  of 
the  place.  The  general  opinion,  however,  favours  the  agency 
of  fire.  This  was  the  idea  entertained  by  the  schoolmen.  The 
Latins  in  the  council  of  Florence,  maintained,  with  the  utmost 
perspicuity,  the  same  theory,  though  in  complaisance  to  the 
Greeks,  the  term  was  omitted  in  the  synodal  definition.  The 
Florentines  were  followed  by  the  synod  of  Diamper,  which  is 
received  in  the  Romish  communion.  The  catechism  of  Trent 
copied  after  the  schoolmen  and  the  councils  of  Florence  and 
Diamper.  The  Cardinal  of  Warmia  and  the  theologians  ap- 
pointed to  frame  the  Trentine  canon,  though  they  resolved  to 
avoid  every  difficulty,  differed  on  the  place  and  medium  of  pur- 
gation. Some,  like  the  council  of  Florence,  wished  to  mention 
fire  as  the  means  of  punishment  and  expiation ;  while  others  re- 
jected this  idea.  This  disagreement  caused  the  omission  of  the 
term  and  the  substitution  of  a  general  expression.  But  the 
word  was  introduced  into  the  catechism  of  Trent,  published  by 
the  authority  of  the  council  and  the  agency  of  the  pontiff.  The 
same  has  been  sanctioned  by  the  majority  of  the  popish  theolo- 
gians ;  such  as  Gregory,  Aquinas,  Surius,  and  Bellarmine. 
Bellarmine,  however,  is  doubtful  whether  the  fire  is  proper  or 
metaphorical.3  Venial  impurity,  the  cardinal  thinks,  may  be 

1  Nunc  vacuus  remanet.  Bellarmin,  II.  6.  Post  Judicium  novissimum  non 
fore  purgatorium.  Bellarmin,  I.  4.  Purgatoire  sera  aboli  au  jour  du  jugeraent 
Calmet,  22.  362.  Aquin.  3.  544. 

3  Greg.  Dial.  IV.  30.  35.     Bell.  II.  11.     Surius,  Ann.  1537. 

3  Itali  fatentur  Purgatorium  per  ignem.  Labb.  18.  27.  Inter  Latinos,  certissi- 
mum  est,  ignem  ilium  esse  corporeum.  Faber,  2.  453. 

Latini  dicentes  Purgatorium  ignem  esse.  Bin.  8.  564.  Hi,  dubio  procul,  in 
fupradicto  igne  quod  purgatorium  appellari  eolet,  purgantur  Crabb.  3.  376.  Est 


PRETENDED  PUNISHMENTS  OF  PURGATORY.       493 

expunged  by  the  application  of  allegorical  or  figurative  flames. 
Many  have  represented  water,  accompanied  with  darkness, 
tempest,  whirlwind,  snow,  ice,  frost,  hail,  and  rain,  as  the 
means  of  purgatorian  atonement.  Perpetua,  in  a  vision,  saw 
a  pond  in  this  land  of  temporary  penalty,  though  its  water  was 
inaccessible  to  the  thirsty  inhabitants,  whom  it  only  tantalized 
with  illusive  mockery.  Gregory,  the  Roman  pontiff,  soused 
Pascasius  a  Roman  deacon  in  the  warm  baths  of  Angelo,  for 
the  expiation  of  his  venial  sins.  Severinus  of  Cologne  ap- 
peared to  Damian,  immersed  in  a  river  in  which  he  was  steeped 
as  an  abstergent  for  his  trifling  contaminations.  The  water  of 
this  country,  in  the  most  authentic  accounts,  is  both  hot  and 
cold  :  and  the  wretched  inhabitants  pass  in  rapid  but  painful 
transition  from  the  warm  to  the  frosty  element,  from  the  torrid 
to  the  frigid  zone.  The  purgatorians  enjoy,  in  succession,  the 
cool  and  the  tepid  bath  ;  and  are  transferred,  without  any  use- 
less ceremony,  from  the  icy  pond  to  the  boiling  caldron.1 

These  accounts  have  been  authenticated  by  travellers,  who 
visited  this  subterranean  empire,  and  who  were  privileged  to 
survey  all  its  dismal  scenery.  Ulysses,  Telemachus,  and 
jEneas  were  admitted  to  view  the  arcana  of  Tartarus ;  and 
Drithelm,  Enus,  and  Thurcal,  in  like  manner,  were  permitted 
to  explore  the  secrets  of  purgatory.  The  visions  of  the  three 
latter  are  recorded  in  the  prose  of  Bede  and  Paris,  as  the 
gloomy  path  of  the  three  former  had  been  blazoned  in  the 
poetry  of  Homer,  Virgil,  and  Fenelon.  The  travels  of  the 
heroes,  however,  were  attended  with  greater  difficulty  than 
those  of  the  saints.  Ulysses,  Telemachus,  and  JEneas  were 
entangled,  on  their  journey,  with  the  encumbrance  of  the  body ; 
while  Drithelm,  Enus,  and  Thurcal,  unfettered  by  that  re- 
straint, winged  their  easy  way  and  expatiated  in  spirit  through 
purgatory  in  all  its  sulphurous  walks  and  roasting  furnaces. 

Drithelm,  whose  story  is  related  by  Bede  and  Bellarmme, 
was  led  on  his  journey  by  an  angel  in  shining  raiment ;  and 
proceeded,  in  the  company  of  his  guide,  towards  the  rising  of 
the  sun.  The  travellers,  at  length,  arrived  in  a  valley  of  vast 
dimensions.  This  region,  to  the  left,  was  covered  with  roasting 
furnaces,  and,  to  the  right,  with  icy  cold,  hail,  and  snow.  The 
whole  valley  was  filled  with  human  souls,  which  a  tempest 
seemed  to  toss  in  all  directions.  The  unhappy  spirits,  unable 

purgatorius  ignis.  Cat.  Trid.  50.  Per  ignem  aliasque  poenas  abluuntur.  Syn. 
Diam.  in  Cossart,  6.  20.  Paolo,  2.  633. 

Non  sit  metaphorice  dictus,  sed  versus  ignis  corporeus.  Aquin.  Pars.  III.  Q.  70. 
Art.  III.  P.  547. 

In  purgatorio  sicut  etiam  in  inferno  esse  poenam  ignis.  Sive  iste  ignis  accipia 
tur  proprie  sive  metaphorice.  Bellarmin.  II.  10. 

'  Alex.  9.  393.     Gregory,  IV.  40.     Bellarmin,  II.  6. 


494  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

in  the  one  part  to  bear  the  violent  heat,  leaped  into  the  sniver- 
ing  cold,  which  again  drove  them  into  the  scorching  flames 
which  cannot  be  extinguished.  A  numberless  multitude  o*' 
deformed  souls  were,  in  this  manner,  whirled  about  and  tor- 
mented without  intermission  in  the  extremes  of  alternate  heat 
and  cold.  This,  according  to  the  angelic  conductor  who 
piloted  Drithelrn,  is  the  place  of  chastisement  for  such  as  defer 
confession  and  amendment  till  the  hour  of  death.  All  these, 
however,  will,  at  the  last  day,  be  admitted  to  heaven  :  while 
many,  through  alms,  vigils,  prayers,  and  especially  the  mass, 
will  be  liberated  even  before  the  general  judgment.1 

The  story  of  Enus  is  told  by  Paris.2  This  adventurer  was 
a  warrior  and  had  campaigned  under  Stephen,  king  of  England. 
Resolved  to  make  reparation  in  Saint  Patrick's  purgatory  for 
the  enormity  of  his  life,  Enus  visited  Ireland.  The  Son  of 
God,  if  old  chronicles  may  be  credited,  appeared  to  the  Saint 
when  he  preached  the  gospel  to  the  BESTIAL  Irish,  and  instructed 
the  missionary  to  construct  a  purgatory  at  Lough  Derg:  and 
promised  the  plenary  remission  of  sin  to  all  who  should  remain 
a  day  and  a  night  in  this  laboratory  of  atonement.  Fortified  by 
the  holy  communion  and  sprinkled  with  holy  water,  the  fearless 
soldier  entered  the  gloomy  cave. 

Protected  by  invoking  the  Son  of  God,  Enus  beheld  the 
punishments  of  the  wretched  purgatorians.  The  groans  of  the 
sufferers  soon  began  to  stun  his  ears.  Numberless  men  and 
women,  lying  naked  on  the  earth  and  transfixed  with  red-hot 
nails,  bit  the  dust  with  pain.  Devils  lashed  some  with  dread- 
ful whips.  Fiery  dragons  gnawed  some  with  ignited  teeth ; 
while  flaming  serpents  pierced  others  with  burning  stings. 
Toads  of  amazing  size  and  terror  endeavoured,  with  ugly 
beaks,  to  extract  the  hearts  of  many.  Monstrous  deformed 
worms,  breathing  fire  from  their  mouths,  devoured  some  with 
insatiable  voracity.  Some  hung  in  sulphurous  flames,  with 
chains  through  their  feet,  legs,  hands,  arms,  and  heads,  or  with 
iron  hooks  in  a  state  of  ignition  through  their  eyes,  nose,  jaws, 
and  breasts.  Some  were  roasted  on  spits,  fried  in  pans,  or 
broiled  in  furnaces.  Many  were  hurled  headlong  into  a  fetid, 
tumbling,  roaring  river,  and,  if  any  raised  their  heads  above 
the  surface,  devils,  running  along  the  stream,  sunk  them  again 
into  the  cold  element.  A  sulphurous  well,  emitting  flame  and 
stench,  threw  up  men  like  sparkling  scintillations,  into  the  air, 
and  again  received  them  falling  into  its  burning  mouth. 

Thurcal's  adventure  is  also  related  by  Paris.  Julian,  who 
officiated  as  guide  on  the  occasion,  left  the  body  of  ThurcaJ 

1  Beda,  V.  12.     Bell.  I.  7.     Faber,  2.  449.  3  M.  Paris,  83,  180,  270. 


PRETENDED  PUNISHMENTS  OF  PURGATORY.       495 

sleeping  in  bed,  and  took  only  the  soul  as  the  companion  of  his 
journey  to  the  nether  world.  He  wisely,  however,  breathed 
life  into  the  soulless  body,  lest,  in  the  spirit's  absence,  it  should 
appear  dead.  Having  settled  these  necessary  prelimi- 
nary arrangements,  the  two  spiritual  travellers  departed,  at 
night,  from  England  for  purgatory.  The  two  disembodied 
companions  soon  winged  their  aerial  way  to  the  middle  of  the 
world  towards  the  east,  and  entered  a  spacious  fabric  of  won- 
derful structure.  This  edifice  was  the  general  rendezvous  of 
departed  souls,  and  was  built  by  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  at  the 
intercession  of  Lady  Mary,  his  mother.  The  palace,  of  course, 
had  a  respectable  architect. 

Many  souls  in  this  dep6t  of  spirits,  and  many  beyond  the 
north  wall,  were  marked  with  spots  indicating  their  venial  sins. 
The  apostle  Paul  sat  in  the  palace  at  the  end  of  the  north  wall. 
The  Devil  and  his  guards  sat  without  the  wall  opposite  the 
apostle.  A  balance  was  affixed  to  the  wall  between  the  apostle 
and  the  Devil,  in  which  Paul  and  Satan,  with  precision  and  care, 
weighed  the  souls.  The  former  had  two  weights,  which  were 
bright  and  golden  ;  and  the  latter  two,  which,  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, were  dark  and  smoky.  When  the  beam  inclined  to 
Beelzebub,  the  guards  threw  the  soul,  wailing  and  cursing,  into 
a  flamy  gulph,  which,  of  course,  was  hell.  This  unceremonious 
treatment  of  sinners  afforded  fine  fun  to  the  devils,  whose  duty, 
on  the  occasion,  was  attended  with  loud  peals  of  infernal  laughter. 
When  the  beam  inclined  to  Paul,  the  apostle  introduced  the  soul 
through  the  eastern  gate  to  purgatory,  to  make  compensation 
for  its  venial  crimes. 

Purgatory,  according  to  our  subterranean  traveller,  consists 
of  a  vast  valley  between  two  walls,  the  northern  and  southern. 
The  entrance  into  this  ancient  domain  is  occupied  with  purga- 
torian  fire  :  caldrons,  filled  with  flaming  pitch,  blazing  sulphur, 
and  other  fiery  materials,  boil  or  roast  the  souls  for  the  expiation 
of  their  sins.  These  furnaces  also  exhaled  a  stench,  which  was 
not  very  pleasing  to  the  olfactory  nerves  ;  and  which  caused 
even  the  disembodied  souls  that  on  earth  had  wallowed  in 
filthy  gratifications  to  cough,  hiccup,  and  sneeze.  Having 
enjoyed  the  warm  bath,  the  souls,  for  the  sake  of  variety,  were 
introduced  into  the  cold  one.  The  unhappy  spirits  exemplified 
the  variations  of  Popery,  and  passed  into  a  frosty  pool,  which 
skirted  the  eastern  extremity  of  the  valley.  The  water  of  this 
pool  was  icy,  salt,  and  shivering.  The  spirits,  according  to 
their  crimes,  were  immersed  in  this  lake  to  the  knee,  the  middle, 
or  the  neck.  Removed  from  this  shivering  situation,  the  suf- 
ferer had  to  undergo  another  trial.  A  bridge,  studded  with 
sharp  nails  and  thorns  with  their  points  turned  upwards,  had 


496  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

to  be  crossed.  The  souls  walked  bare-footed  on  this  rough 
road,  and  endeavouring  to  ease  their  feet,  leaned  on  their  hands  : 
and  afterwards  rolled,  with  the  whole  body,  on  the  perforating 
spikes,  till,  pierced  and  bloody,  they  worked  their  painful  tedious 
way  over  the  thorny  path.  Passing  this  defile  was  often  the 
labour  of  many  years.  But  this  last  difficulty  being  surmounted 
the  spirits,  forgetful  of  their  pain,  escaped  to  heaven,  called  the 
mount  of  joy. 

Perpetua'  s  vision  may,  for  the  sake  of  variety,  be  added  to 
the  Tartarean  travels  of  Drithelm,  Enus,  a.nd  Thurcal.  This 
holy  martyr  had  a  brother  called  Dinocrates,  who  died  of  an 
ulcer  in  his  face  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  age.  His  sister,  in 
a  vision  of  the  night,  saw  the  boy  after  his  death  going  out  of  a 
dark  thirsty  place,  with  a  dirty  face,  a  pale  colour,  and  the 
ulcer  of  which  he  died  remaining  in  his  visage.  The  smoky 
thirsty  enclosure,  in  which  he  was  confined,  contained  a  pond 
full  of  water,  which  however,  being  inaccessible,  only  tanta- 
lized the  thirsty  child. 

Perpetua  knew  this  prison  to  be  purgatory  ;  and  her  prayers 
and  tears,  clay  and  night,  for  his  deliverance  were  attended  with 
their  usual  success.  She  soon  had  the  pleasure  of  seeing  her 
brother  clean,  dressed,  and  joyful.  The  malady,  which  had  dis- 
figured his  face,  was  healed.  He  had  obtained  access  to  the 
Tartarean  pool,  and,  from  a  golden  cup,  swallowed  copious 
potations  ;  and  then  played,  like  a  child,  through  the  plain.1 
Perpetua  awaking,  understood  that  the  youth  was  released 
from  punishment.  All  this  is  very  clear  and  satisfactory.  The 
vision  presents  a  graphic  description  of  purgatory,  as  a  place 
of  dirt,  paleness,  disease,  heat,  thirst,  smoke,  and  tantalizing 
water  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  opens  a  pleasing  prospect  of 
heaven,  as  a  country  of  cleanness,  dress,  health,  water,  cups, 
joy,  and,  at  least  with  respect  to  boys,  of  fun  and  frolic. 

Perpetua'  s  dream  was  eulogized  by  many  of  the  ancients.  Its 
truth  and  fidelity,  in  a  particular  manner  and  on  several  occa- 
sions, was  applauded  by  Augustine  of  sainted  memory.  The 
report  has  also  extorted  an  encomium  from  Alexander,  who, 
moreover,  discovered  that  those  who  deny  purgatory  are  never 
privileged  with  such  visions.  Dreams  of  this  kind,  the  learned 
Sorbonnist  found  out,  are  peculiar  to  the  faithful  friends  of  a 
middle  state  of  expiation.  He  must  have  been  a  man  of  genius 
or  inspiration  to  have  made  such  a  prodigious  discovery.  Bel- 
larmine  sings  to  the  same  tune.  These  holy  men,  says  the 
cardinal,  could  neither  deceive  nor  be  deceived  :  as  they  pos- 


more  infantium  gaudens.     Alex.  9.  393.     Augustin,  5,  1134,  et  10,  401 
Bell.  II.  6. 


PURGATORY    DESTITUTE     OF    SCRIPTURAL    AUTHORITY.     497 

sessed  the  spirit  of  discrimination,  and  were  the   particular 
friends  of  God. 

Such  are  the  visions  of  purgatory,  recorded  by  Bede,  Paris, 
and  Perpetua.  The  tales  are  as  silly  as  the  Pagan  mythology 
of  Charon  and  his  fabled  boat.  The  relation  is  as  ridiculous 
as  any  of  the  sarcastic  dialogues  of  Lucian,  concerning  the 
ferryman  of  Tartarus,  which  were  designed  to  ridicule  the 
absurdity  of  gentilism.  The  Protestantism  and  philosophy  of 
modern  days  have  exposed  such  notions,  and  made  the  patrons 
of  Romanism  shy  in  recognizing  the  ridiculous  delineations. 
But  the  statements,  however  risible,  obtained  the  undivided 
belief  and  unqualified  respect  of  our  Popish  ancestors.  The 
denial  of  these  details  would  once  have  been  accounted  rank 
heresy.  Bellarmine,  in  later  days,  swallowed  the  reports  with 
avidity,  in  all  their  revolting  fatuity.  The  moderns,  who  may 
choose  to  reject  the  tales  of  folly,  will  only  add  another*  instance 
to  the  many  variations  of  Popery. 

Purgatory,  in  all  its  forms,  is  a  variation  from  scriptural 
authority.  Revelation  affords  it  no  countenance.  No  other 
dogma  of  Romanism,  except  image-worship  and  the  invocation 
of  saints,  seems  to  borrow  so  little  support  from  the  Book  of 
Inspiration.  The  Bible,  by  certain  management  and  dexterity, 
may  appear  to  lend  some  encouragement  to  transubstantiation 
and  extreme  unction.  But  the  ingenuity  of  man  has  never  been 
able  to  discover  a  single  argument  for  a  middle  place  of  purifi- 
cation, possessing  even  a  shadow  of  plausibility.  The  name 
itself  is  not  in  all  the  Sacred  Volume,  and  the  attempts  which 
have  been  made  to  find  the  tenet  in  its  inspired  contents  have 
only  shown  the  fatuity  of  the  authors.  The  Book  of  God,  on 
these  occasions,  has  been  uniformly  tortured,  for  the  purpose 
of  extorting  acknowledgements  of  which  it  is  guiltless,  and 
which,  without  compulsion,  it  would  obstinately  deny.  The 
body  of  an  unhappy  heretic  was  never  more  unmercifully  man- 
gled and  disjointed  in  a  Spanish  inquisition,  with  the  design  of 
forcing  confession,  than  the  Book  of  Divine  Revelation,  with  the 
intention  of  compelling  it  to  patronize  purgatory.  The  soul  of 
a  venial  sinner  never  suffered  more  exquisite  torments  in  pur- 
gatory itself,  even  if  its  existence  were  real,  for  the  expiation  of 
venial  iniquity,  than  the  language  of  the  inspired  volume  for 
proof  of  a  place  of  posthumous  purgation. 

The  uselessness  of  attempting  scriptural  evidence  for  this 
opinion,  indeed,  has  been  acknowledged  by  many  popish 
authors.  Many  distinguished  theologians  have,  with  laudable 
candour,  admitted  the  silence  of  Revelation  on  this  topic  :  and 
among  the  rest,  Barns,  Bruys,  Courayer,  Alphonsus,  Fisher, 
Polydorus,  Soto,  Perionius,  Picherel,  Wicelius,  Gajetan,  and 

32 


498  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Trevern.  Barns  declares  '  purgatorial  punishment  a  matter  of 
human  opinion,  which  can  be  evinced  neither  from  scripture, 
fathers,  nor  councils.'  The  belief  of  this  intermediate  place, 
according  to  Bruys,  '  was  unknown  to  the  Apostles  and  original 
Christians.'  Courayer,  in  his  annotations  on  Paolo,  admits 
'  the  incorrectness  of  ascribing  this  dogma  to  Scripture  or  even 
to  tradition.  Alphonsus,  Fisher,  and  Polydorus  '  grant  the 
total  omission  or  rare  mention  of  this  tenet  in  the  monuments  of 
antiquity.'  Similar  concessions  have  been  made  by  Soto, 
Perionius,  Picherel,  Wicelius,  Cajetan,  and  Trevern.1 

Bellarmine  and  Alexander,  the  two  celebrated  advocates  of 
this  theology,  have,  between  them,  rejected  all  its  scriptural 
proofs,  and  agree  only  in  one  apocryphal  argument.  Alexan- 
der explodes  all  Bellarmine's  quotations  for  this  purpose,  from 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  but  one — and  this,  Bellarmine 
admits,  is  illogical.2  The  Sorbonnist,  without  any  hesitation  or 
ceremony,  condemns  seventeen  of  the  Jesuits'  citations,  and 
reduces  his  evidence  to  a  mere  shadow.  He  combats  the  cardi- 
nal's sophistry  with  learning  and  fearlessness.  The  single  argu- 
ment, which  the  former  represents  as  demonstrative,  the  latter 
characterizes  as  sophistical  and  inconclusive.  The  two  cham- 
pions of  purgatory  contrive,  in  this  manner,  to  free  Revelation 
from  all  tendency  to  countenance  the  unscriptural  and  ridiculous 
invention.  Both  these  polemics,  indeed,  quote  the  Maccabean 
history  as  demonstrative  in  favour  of  a  middle  state.  But  this 
book  is  uncanonical ;  and  is  disclaimed,  Bellarmine  grants,  by 
the  Jews,  and  was  formerly  doubted  by  Christians.3  The  proof, 
besides,  taken  from  this  work,  is  founded  on  intercession  for 
departed  souls,  which  by  no  means  supposes  a  place  of  propi- 
tiation between  death  and  the  resurrection. 

Calmet,  the  Benedictine,  offers  three  citations,  canonical  and 
uncanonical,  on  this  topic.  Two  of  these  agree  with  Alexan- 
der's. One  is  apocryphal ;  and  another  led  Bellarmine,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  concession,  in  pressing  it  to  favour  his  system, 
into  sophistry.  Calmet,  in  the  third,  supposes,  that  Paul  prayed 
for  Onesiphorus  when  the  latter  was  dead.  But  the  supposition 
is  unfounded  :  and,  even  if  true,  supplication  for  the  dead,  as 

1  Punitio  ergo  in  Purgatorio  est  res  in  opinione  humana  posita,  quae   nee    ex 
Scripturis,  nee  Patribu?  nee  Conciliis  deducere  potest.     Barns.  $.  9.     Ce  que  1'  on 
croit  aujourd'hui  du  Purgatoire  ayoit  ete  inconnu  aux  Apotres  et  aux   premiers 
fideles.     Bruys,  1.  378.     Ce  n'est  done  pas  parler  exactement  que  de   dire   que 
i'ecriture  et  la  tradition  enseignent  le  Purgatoire.     Couray.  in  Paol.   2.   644.     In 
veteribus  de  Purgatorio  fere  nulla  potissimum  apud  Graecos  scriptores  mentio  est. 
Alphonsus,  VIII.     De  Purgatorio,  apud  priscos  illos,  nulla,  vel  quam    rarissima 
fiebat  mentio.     Fisher,  Art.  18.     Polydorus,  VIII.     Pich.  c.  2.     Trevern,  242. 

2  Non  sequi  secundem  regulas  dialecticarum.     Bellarmin,  1.  4.     Matth.  xii.  32. 

3  Lib.     Machabaeorum  non  esse  canonicum  apud  Judaeos.  Libri  Machabaeorum 
Bunt  ex  eorum  numero,  de  quibus  aliquando  etiam  inter  Catholicos   dubitatum. 
Bellarmin,  I.  3. 


ROMISH    ARGUMENTS    FROM    SCRIPTURE    REFUTED.        499 

shall  afterwards  be  shown,  supplies  no  evidence  for  purgatory 
Challenor,  always  insidious  and  soothing,  adduces  seven  quota- 
tions, without  hinting  at  their  inadequacy  or  the  opposition  of 
ancient  fathers  or  modern  theologians.1 

The  ancients,  in  scriptural  interpretation  on  this  subject, 
differ,  even  according  to  Bellarmine,  Alexander,  and  Calmet,  as 
much  as  the  moderns.  The  cardinal,  the  sorbonnist,  and  the 
benedictine  have  cited  Augustine,  Jerome,  Gregory,  Cyril, 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Theophylact,  Ambrosius,  Anselm, 
and  Bede.  All  these  have  been  quoted,  and  quoted  against 
each  other.  Bellarmine,  Alexander,  and  Calmet  have,  at  great 
length  and  with  extraordinary  patience,  shown  that  these 
authors  are  at  utter  variance  on  the  inspired  proofs  for  the 
support  of  a  middle  state  of  purification.  The  interpretation 
which  one  adopts,  another  rejects.  One  approves  the  exposi- 
tion which  another  condemns.2  The  collector  of  their  varia- 
tions, which,  on  this  question,  are  nearly  past  reckoning,  would 
require  the  learning  of  Lardner,  and  their  reader  the  patience 
of  Job. 

The  patrons  of  this  system  have  urged  four  scriptural  quo- 
tations, which  are  worthy  of  attention,  and  will,  on  this  subject, 
show  the  inconsistency  and  variations  of  popish  advocacy. 
These  proofs  are  taken  from  Matthew,  Paul,  and  Peter.  The 
sacred  historian  Matthew  records  our  Lord's  sermon,  which 
mentions  a  prison,  from  which  the  debtor  shall  not  escape  till 
he  pay  '  the  uttermost  farthing.'  Bellarmine,  Challenor,  Milner, 
and  the  Rhemists  say,  this  prison  is  purgatory,  which  detains 
the  venial  transgressor  till  he  satisfy  for  his  trivial  impurity. 

Many  Romish  saints  and  commentators,  however,  give  a 
different  explanation.  Augustine,  Jerome,  Bede,  Maldonat, 
and  Alexander  say,  the  prison  is  hell,  and  the  punishment  ever- 
lasting.3 Augustine,  a  saint  of  superior  manufacture,  patron- 
ized this  exposition.  Jerome,  another  saint  overflowing  with 
gall  and  superstition,  maintained  the  same  opinion.  According 
to  the  canonized  commentator  of  Palestine,  *  The  person,  who 
does  not,  before  the  end  of  his  life,  pay  the  last  farthing,  men- 

1  Calm.  Diet.  3.  746.     Alex.  9.  365.     2  Tim.  I.  18.     Challenor,  c.  14. 

8  Bellarmin,  I.  4.     Alexan.  9.  353.     Cal.  Com.  22.  36 1. 

3  Semper  non  exiturum  esse  qui  semper  solvit  novissimum  quadrantem.  Au» 
giistin,  3.  177.  Nunquam  solvitur  a  carcere,  qui  quadrantem  verbi  novissimum 
nou  solveret  ante  finem  vitse.  Jerom,  5.  895.  et  4.  133.  Donee  salves  pro  infinite, 
ponitur  sicut  alibi  'donee  ponam  inimicos  tuos,'  Beda,  5.  12.  Via  est  hujus  vitae 
tempus,  career  infernus.  Nunquam  exiturus,  quia  qui  in  inferno  sunt  nnnqunm 
persolvunt.  Maldonat,  121.  Non  significat  unde  nos  exituros  postea  sed  nun- 
quam.  Quia  cum  prenas  infinitas  pro  quolibet  mortali  peccato  diluant  damnati 
nunquam  eas  persolvunt.  Nunquam  ex  iiiferni  carcere  exituri  sunt  de  quibus  hoc 
dictum  est.  Alex.  9.  385.  Matth.  v.  26.  Psal.  ex.  1.  1  Corin.  xv.  25.  Rhem. 
On  Matth.  v.  25. 

32* 


t>00  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

tioned  in  the  words  of  the  inspired  penman,  will  never  be 
released  from  the  prison.'  The  two  Roman  saints  were 
followed  by  Bede,  an  English  monk  of  learning  and  orthodoxy. 
He  makes  the  term  UNTIL  signify  endless  duration  as  in  the 
expression  of  David,  cited  by  Paul,  "till  I  put  all  your  ene- 
mies under  your  feet.'J  Maldonat  concurs  with  Augustine, 
Jerome,  and  Bede.  The  learned  Jesuit  interprets  '  the  prison 
to  signify  hell,  from  which  the  debtor,  who  will  be  punished 
with  the  utmost  rigour,  will  never  escape,  because  he  will 
never  pay.' 

Alexander  delivers  a  similar  interpretation,  in  a  more  length- 
ened and  detailed  form.  The  inspired  phraseology,  says  this 
doctor,  'signifies  not  whence  he  will  afterward  depart,  but 
whence  he  will  never  depart.  The  words  are  spoken  of  hell, 
from  which  the  condemned,  who  undergo  the  infinite  punish- 
ment of  mortal  sin,  which  they  can  never  pay,  will  never  be 
released.'  He  quotes  David  and  Paul  for  illustration  and 
confirmation  of  his  comment.  The  word  until,  in  Scriptural 
language,  often  denotes  that  the  event,  to  which  it  refers,  will 
never  happen.  God  invited  his  Son  to  "sit  at  his  right  hand, 
till  his  enemies  should  become  his  footstool."  But  he  will  not 
then  leave  his  seat.  The  king  of  Zion  will  reign  till  every  foe 
is  subdued.  But  he  will  not  then  cease  to  reign.  The  raven 
returned  not  to  Noah,  "till  the  waters  were  dried."  But  no 
return  succeeded.  Apply  this  to  the  words  of  Jesus  in 
Matthew,  and  all  is  clear.  The  person  impri-soned,  unable  to 
pay,  will  never  be  liberated.  Augustine  quotes  the  same 
passages  from  David  and  Paul  for  proof  and  illustration.  The 
Rhemists  against  Helvidius,  on  another  part  of  Matthew's  gos- 
pel, give  a  similar  explanation  of  the  phrase ;  and,  in  this 
manner,  furnish  arms  against  themselves. 

Such  is  the  genuine  signification  of  the  passage.  Popish 
commentators,  in  modern  times,  may  be  dissatisfied  with  the 
explanation  ;  and,  if  they  please,  call  it  a  heresy.  The  inter- 
pretation, however,  is  not  the  production  of  Luther,  Zuinglius, 
Calvin,  Cranmer,  or  Knox ;  but  of  Augustine,  Jerome,  Beda, 
Maldonat,  and  Alexander :  two  saints,  a  monk,  a  Jesuit,  and  a 
sorbonnist. 

The  partizans  of  purgatory  argue  from  another  passage  in 
Matthew.  Sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  said,  shall  be  for- 
given, "neither  in  this  world,  nor  in  the  world  to  come." 
This,  the  Romish  doctors  account  their  strong  hold.  This, 
they  reckon  the  impregnable  bulwark  of  their  system.  This, 
Alexander  who  condemns  all  other  arguments  taken  from  the 
New  Testament,  calls  demonstration.  Calmet  accounts  it  the 
main  pillar  of  the  mighty  superstructure :  and  in  this  opinion, 


ROMISH    ARGUMENTS    FROM    SCRIPTURE    REFUTED.        501 

modern  Romish  commentators,  in  general,  seem  to  concur.1 
Sin,  say  these  critics,  committed  against  the  Spirit,  will  not  be 
pardoned  "in  the  world  to  come,"  and  this  implies,  if  it  does 
not  express,  that  some  sins  will  be  remitted  in  a  future  world. 
But  forgiveness  can  have  no  reference  to  heaven  or  hell,  and, 
therefore,  there  must  be  a  middle  state  of  pardon,  and  this  is 
called  purgatory. 

The  least  discernment  might  enable  any  person  to  see  the 
futility  of  this  argument.  The  Romish  Dogma  is  variation 
from  the  words  of  the  sacred  historian.  Matthew  mentions 
forgiveness.  But  the  intermediate  state  of  popery  is  not  a  place 
of  pardon,  but  of  punishment  and  expiation.  The  venial  trans- 
gressor cannot  be  released  from  that  prison,  till  he  pay  the 
uttermost  farthing.  This  is  plainly  no  remission.  No  sin,  says 
Alexander,  can  be  remitted  by  ordinary  law  without  satisfaction 
and  due  punishment.  Full  expiation  is  made  in  the  purgatorial 
state  ;  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  remission  in  the  world  to  corne 
on  popish  any  more  than  on  protestant  principles. 

The  irremission  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  in  a  future 
state,  does  not  imply  the  remission  of  other  sins.  The  unpar- 
donableness  of  one  sin  infers  not  the  pardonableness  of  another. 
The  conclusion,  in  this  syllogism,  is  not  contained  in  the  pre- 
mises. This,  Bellarmirie  had  the  discernment  to  see  and  the 
candour  to  confess.  He  quotes  the  text,  and,  from  it,  concludes 
the  existence  of  a  middle  state  of  pardon,  and  then,  in  glorious 
inconsistency,  admits  the  conclusion  to  be  illogical.  The  Car- 
dinal, in  this  instance  as  in  many  others,  varies  from  himself. 
His  boasted  argument,  he  grants,  as  he  well  might,  is  a  pitiful 
sophism.2  Mark  and  Luke  have  explained  Matthew  with  more 
consistency  than  Bellarmine.  The  two  inspired  historians  say, 
this  kind  of  blasphemy  shall  never  be  forgiven,  and  their  lan- 
guage, which  only  prejudice  could  misunderstand,  is  synony- 
mous with  Matthew's,  and  explodes  the  silly  and  unfounded 
idea  of  purgatorian  remission. 

The  statements  of  Mark  and  Luke,  as  explanatory  of  Matthew, 
have  been  adopted  by  Augustine,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Theo- 
phylact,  Basil,  Calmet,  and  Maldonat.8  This  blasphemy,  says 

1  Matth.  xii.  32.     Alex.  9.  374.     Calm.  Diet.  3.  746. 

2  Bellarmin,  I.  4.     Mark  iii.  29.     Luke  xii.  10. 

3  Non  habet  remissionem  in  seternum.     Aliis  verbis  et  alio  loquendi  modo  eadem 
ipsa  est  expressa  sententia.     Augustin,  5.  390.     Serm.    71.     Remitti  nobis   hoc 
peccatum  omnino  non  possit.     Augustin,  ad  Bon.  2.  662.     Nullo  tempore  blasphe- 
mia  remittetur.     Jerom.  4.  50. 

Evi'dufla  xat,  sxzi,  Scogs'ts  Scxqv.  Evtav9a  xoha£ovtat,  xcu  txti'  Chrysos.  7.  449. 
EvT'auflaxcu  SXM  T'tyuop^tf-r'at.  Theophylact  in  Matt.  xii.  Acfvy^wp^-r'ov  «f<u 
tfjj  stj  -to  Ttvsvfia  Tfo  aycov  jSkacr^jiua.  Basil,  3.  59. 

Ce  peche  ne  sera  remis,  ni  en  ce  monde,  ni  en  1'autre,  c'est  a  dire  qu'il  est  irre- 
missible  par  sa  nature.  Calmet,  Diss.  3.  389.  Non  ignoramus  phrasim  esse  quae 
idem  valeat  quod  in  aeternum.  Maldonat,  264. 


602  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Augustine, <  shall  never  be  remitted.  Matthew  and  Mark  vary- 
in  expression,  but  agree  in  signification.  This  sin  cannot  at  all 
be  forgiven.'  Jerome,  concurring  with  Augustine,  says,  *  this 
blasphemy  shall,  at  no  time,  be  remitted.'  Chrysostom's  com- 
ment, is  if  possible,  still  plainer  and  more  explicit  than  those  of 
Augustine  and  Jerome.  The  scriptural  diction,  in  his  expla- 
nation, means  that  the  perpetrator  of  this  atrocity  shall  be 
punished  here  and  hereafter  :  here,  like  the  Corinthian  fornicator, 
by  excommunication,  and  hereafter,  like  the  citizens  of  Sodom, 
by  suffering  «  the  vengeance  of  eternal  fire.'  Calinet,  in  his 
Dissertations,  observes  according  to  the  same  exposition  «  This 
sin  shall  be  pardoned  neither  in  this  world  nor  in  the  other,  that 
is  to  say,  it  is  unpardonable  in  its  nature.'  Maldonat,  though 
he  strenuously  maintains  the  purgatorian  system  from  our  Lord's 
words,  admits  that  the  phraseology  of  Matthew  and  that  of 
Mark  are  synonymous,  and  signify  the  eternal  irremission  of 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  original  term,  translated  world,  signifies  time,  age,  or 
duration.  Jerome,  accordingly,  has  rendered  the  Greek  by  a 
Latin  word  denoting  time.  This  sin,  in  the  commentary  of 
this  Saint,  shall  be  forgiven  neither  in  the  present  nor  at  a  future 
time.1  This  expression  seems  to  confine  the  meaning  to  the 
present  life.  The  inspired  language  simply  states,  that  this 
blasphemy  would  be  pardoned  neither  at  the  present  nor  at  a 
future  period.  The  word  sometimes  signifies  the  Jewish  estab- 
lishment and  sometimes  the  Christian  dispensation.  Matthew, 
in  his  Gospel,  used  it  in  the  former  sense.  Paul,  addressing 
the  Corinthians  and  Hebrews,  takes  it  in  the  latter  acceptation. 
The  blasphemy,  according  to  this  explanation,  would  be  for- 
given neither  under  the  Jewish  or  Christian  economy,  though 
the  latter  was  to  be  an  age  of  mercy. 

Paul's  words  to  the  Corinthians  have  also  been  pressed  into 
the  service,  for  the  support  of  purgatory.  The  Apostle  of 
Tarsus  taught  the  Christians  of  Corinth  that  the  professor, 
building  '  wood,  hay,  or  stubble,'  on  the  foundation,  though  his 
'  work  shall  be  burnt,  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire.'  This 
fire,  say  Bellarmine,  Ward,  Challenor,  the  council  of  Sens,  the 
Latins  in  the  council  of  Florence,  and  many  other  advocates 
of  Romanism,  awaits  the  perpetrator  of  trifling  transgressions 
in  the  middle  state.2 

The  difficulty  of  this  passage  might  have  caused  some  hesita- 
tion in  making  it  the  basis  of  any  system.  Its  difficulty  has 
been  acknowledged  in  emphatic  language,  by  Augustine,  Bede, 

1  Neque  in  prsesenti  tempore  neque  in  futuro.     Jerom,  4.  50.     Matth.  xxiv.  3 
1  Corin.  ix.  11.     Heb.  x.  26. 
a  1  Coriu.  iii.  12.     Estius,  1.  215.     Crabb.  3.  747.     Bell  1.  4.     Challen.  128 


ROMISH    ARGUMENTS     FROM    SCRIPTURE    REFUTED.        505 

Bellarmine,  Alexander,  and  Estius.  Bellarmine  represents  it 
as  one  of  the  obscurest,  and,  at  the  same  time,  one  of  the  most 
useful  passages  in  all  revelation.  Its  obscurity,  in  Bellarmine's 
opinion,  contributed  to  its  utility,  as  it  enabled  the  Jesuit,  with 
a  little  management,  to  explain  it  as  he  pleased.  But  Alexan- 
der, with  more  sense  and  honesty,  has,  on  account  of  its  want 
of  perspicuity,  rejected  it  as  a  demonstration  of  purgatory.1 

Its  obscurity,  says  Estius,  '  has  occasioned  many  and  various 
expositions.'  This  authority,  observes  Faber, '  is  very  obscure, 
and  variously  explained,  not  only  by  different  fathers  and  doc- 
tors, but  by  the  same  doctor.  Augustine  interprets  this  place 
in  various  ways.'  Bellarmine,  Alexander,  and  Calmet  have 
collected  a  copious  specimen  of  the  jarring  interpretations  of 
expositors,  on  this  part  of  the  inspired  volume,  and  their  collec- 
tions afford  no  very  flattering  view  of  the  unity  of  Romanism. 

The  principal  significations  which  have  been  attached  to  the 
apostolic  expression,  are  three.  Gregory,  Augustine,  Bernard; 
and  Bede.  account  the  fire  a  metaphor  for  tribulation  or  trial  in 
this  life.  The  Roman  pontiff  and  saints,  as  well  as  the  English 
monk,  refer  the  expression  to  the  pains  endured  not  after  but 
before  death  ;  and  so  exclude  posthumous  expiation.  Similai 
to  this  is  Cajetan's  explanation,  who  makes  it  signify  severe 
judgments.2 

Origen,  Ambrosius,  Lactantius,  Basil,  Jerome,  and  Augus- 
tine, according  to  Estius,  reckon  the  language  literal,  and  refer 
it  to  the  general  conflagration  on  the  day  of  the  last  judgment ; 
though  purgatory,  at  that  period,  will,  according  to  Bellarmine, 
be  evacuated  and  left  empty.  This  ancient  interpretation  has 
been  followed  by  Lombard,  Aquinas,  Haimo,  Alcuin,  and 
Estius.  This  party  make  saint  and  sinner  pass  through  the 
fiery  ordeal,  which  will  try  the  work  of  every  one,  whether  he 
build  gold  and  silver  on  the  foundation,  or  wood,  hay,  and  stub- 
ble.3 But  the  intermediate  place  of  purgation,  in  the  theology 
of  Romanism,  contains  only  the  middling  class,  who  are  guilty 
of  venial  frailty. 

1  Pauli  ilia  sententia  plane  ad  intelligendum  difficilis.  Augustin,  6.  124.  Beds. 
6.  285.  Unum  ex  difficilimis  et  utilissimis  totius  Scripturae.  Bell.  1.  5.  Locus 
obscurissimus  est,  cujus  sensura  vix  assequi  liceat.  Alex.  9.  378.  Estius,  1.  214. 
Non  demonstrative  contra  haereticos  ostendi.  Alexander,  9,  378.  Haec  auctoritas 
est  certe  valde  obscura,  et  variae  explicationes  offeruntur,  non  solum  £  diversis 
patribus  et  docloribus,  sed  ab  eodem  Doctore.  Augustinus  hunc  locum  variiB 
inodis  interpretatur.  Faber,  2.  444. 

3  Hoc  de  igne  tribulationis,  hac  nobis  vita  adhibito,  possit  intelligi.  Greg.  Dial. 
IV.  39.  Eandem  tribulationera  ignem  vocat.  Aug.  C.  D.  XXI.  26.  Sentiat 
Poeuitentiae  tribulationera.  Bernar.  411.  Ignis  tribulationis.  Beda,  6.  287.  Pro 
severo  judicio  Cajetanus  exponit.  Estius,  1.  216. 

3  Excepturus  sit  omnes  eliam  eos  qui  aurum  et  argentum  superaedificant  funda- 
raento.  Probaturus  opus  uniuscujusque.  Estius,  1.  216.  Amboa  prolat.  Aug.  7 
648.  Amb.  3  350.  Aquin.  3.  563. 


504  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Chrysostom  and  Theodoret  interpret  Paul's  diction  to  signify 
the  unquenchable  fire  of  hell,  and  these  two  Grecian  commen- 
mentators  have  been  followed,  say  Bellarmine,  Calmet,  and 
Alexander,  by  Theophylact,  Sedulius,  and  Anselm.1  This  was 
the  opinion  of  the  whole  Grecian  communion.  The  Greeks, 
accordingly,  in  the  council  of  Florence,  represented  the  fire 
mentioned  by  the  apostle,  not  as  purgatorian  but  eternal. 
Alexander  and  Erasmus  also  declare  against  the  popish  exposi- 
tion of  Paul's  language  ;  and  display  the  singular  unanimity  of 
Romish  commentators.  Gregory,  Augustine,  Bernard,  and 
Bede  appear,  on  this  topic,  against  Origen,  Ambrosius,  Hilary, 
Lactantius,  Jerome,  Lombard,  Aquinas,  Haimo,  Alcuin,  and 
Estius  ;  and  all  these  against  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Theophy- 
lact, Sedulius,  and  Anselm.  Saint  encounters  saint,  and 
commentator  attacks  commentator;  and  all  these,  formed  in 
deep  phalanx,  explode  from  Paul's  words  the  modern  fabrication 
of  purgatory. 

The  searching  fire,  mentioned  by  the  apostle,  is  not  purgato- 
rian but  probatory.  Its  effect  is  not  to  purify  but  to  try.  The 
trial  is  not  of  persons,  but  of  works.  The  persons,  in  this 
ordeal,  shall  be  saved  ;  while  the  works,  if  wood,  hay,  or  stub- 
ble, shall  as  the  Greeks  observed  at  the  council  of  Florence,  be 
consumed.  The  popish  purgatory,  on  the  contrary,  is  not  for 
probation,  but  expiation,  and  tries,  not  the  action  but  the  agent, 
not  the  work  but  the  worker.2 

The  scriptural  language,  in  this  case,  is  metaphorical.  The 
foundation  and  the  superstructure,  consisting  of  gold,  silver,  and 
precious  stones,  or  of  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  as  well  as  the 
scrutinizing  flame,  all  these  are  not  literal  but  figurative. 
The  phrase,  *  so  as,'  it  is  plain,  denotes  a  comparison.  The 
salvation,  which  is  accomplished  so  as  by  fire,  is  one  which,  as 
critics  have  shown  from  similar  language  in  sacred  and  profane 
authors,  is  effected  with  difficulty.  Amos,  the  Hebrew  prophet, 
represents  the  Jewish  nation,  who  were  rescued  from  imminent 
danger,  "  as  a  fire-brand  plucked  out  of  the  burning."  Zach- 
ariah,  another  Jewish  seer,  in  the  same  spirit  and  in  similai 
style,  characterizes  a  person  who  was  delivered  from  impending 
destruction,  as  a  brand  snatched  "  out  of  the  fire."  Diction  of 


1*77  $Xoyt.     Chrysos.  II.  243.  Horn.  6.      O?$  ^vtps 

o  ytvp.  Theod.  3.  134.  in  1  Cor.  iii.  12,  13.  Chrysostome,  Theophylacte, 
et  d'autres  Grecs  1'expliquent  du  feu  de  1'enfer  dans  lequel  les  reprouvez  demeu- 
rent  sans  pouvoir  de  mourir.  Calm.  22.  363.  Ignis  ipse  non  purgatorius,  verum 
aeternum  supplicium  sit.  Crabb.  3.  377.  Theoph.  in  Corin.  iii.  Bell.  1.  4.  Alex. 
9.  378,  381. 

2  Nonnulli  inter  quos   Cajetanus   dictum   putant  de   opere  non  de   operante, 
Estius,  1.  213. 

Pia  quidem  opera  manent,  et  non   comburuntur.     Prava  vero   comburantur. 
Ipse  permanebit  igne,  posnas  luendo  seternas.     Libb.  18.  27. 


ROMISH   ARGUMENTS    FROM    SCRIPTURE    REFUTED.        505 

a  similar  kind,  Calmet,  Wetstein,  and  other  critics  have  shown, 
has  been  used  by  Livy,  Cicero,  and  Cyprian,  for  denoting  great 
hazard  and  difficulty.  Paul,  in  like  manner,  designed  to  tell 
us,  that  he  who  should  blend  vain  and  useless  speculations  with 
the  truths  of  the  gospel ;  but  should  rest,  nevertheless,  in  the 
main,  on  the  only  basis,  would,  in  the  end,  be  saved ;  but  with 
the  difficulty  of  a  person,  who  should  escape  with  the  possession 
of  his  life,  but  with  the  loss  of  his  property,  from  an  over- 
whelming conflagration :  or,  according  to  Estius,  like  the 
merchant,  who  should  gain  the  shore  with  the  destruction  of 
his  goods,  but  the  preservation  of  his  life,  from  the  tempest  of 
the  sea.1 

Peter  has  also  been  quoted  in  favour  of  purgatory.  Our 
Lord,  says  the  Galilean  fisherman,  'preached  to  the  spirits  in 
prison.'  This  prison,  according  to  many  modern  abettors  of 
Romanism,  is  the  intermediate  state  of  souls,  into  which  the 
Son  of  God,  after  his  crucifixion  and  before  his  resurrection 
descended,  for  the  purpose  of  preaching  the  gospel  to  its  suffer- 
ing inmates. 

The  obscurity  of  the  text  shows  the  folly  of  making  it  the 
foundation  'of  any  theory.  Augustine,  Bellarmine,  and  Estius 
confess  its  difficulty,  which,  as  might  be  expected,  has  occa- 
sioned a  variety  of  interpretations.  Lorinus,  without  exhaust- 
ing the  diversity,  has  enumerated  ten  different  expositions. 
Some,  by  the  prison,  understand  hell,  into  which,  they  allege, 
Jesus  descended  to  preach  the  gospel  to  pagans  and  infidels. 
This  interpretation,  Calmet  and  Estius  call  error  and  heresy. 
Some  say,  our  Lord  preached  in  the  prison  both  to  the  good 
and  the  bad.  Some  maintain  that  he  preached  only  to  the 
good,  while  others  aver  that  he  preached  only  to  the  bad,  to 
whom  he  proclaimed  their  condemnation.2 

The  principal  interpretations  of  this  difficult  passage  are 
two.  The  prison,  according  to  one  party,  is  the  limbo  of 
the  fathers  or  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  into  which  the  Son  of 
God,  some  time  between  his  crucifixion  and  resurrection,  de- 
scended to  liberate  the  Jewish  saints.  This,  say  Calmet  and 
the  Rhemists,  was  the  common  opinion  of  the  ancients  :  such 
as  Justin,  Clemens,  Athanasius,  Cyril,  Epiphanius,  Jerome, 
Ambrosius,  and  Hilary.  The  schoolmen,  at  a  later  period, 

1  Quemadmodum  mercator  non  nisi  cum  jactura  rerum  suamm  quas  amat,  nee 
sine  dolore  amittit,  e  tempestate  maris  evadit.  Estius,  1.  218.  Amos,  iv.  11. 
Zach.  iii.  2.  Calm.  22.  363.  Wetsteiu  in  Corin.  iii.  15. 

3  Locus  hie  omnium  pene  interpretum  judicio  difficillimus,  idemque  tarn  varie 
expositus.  Estius,  2.  1182.  Augus.  ad  Evod.  Le  Sauveur  avoit  preche  meme 
aux  payens  et  aux  Infideles.  Calmet,  24.  146.  Estius,  2.  1183.  Bell.  1.  416. 
Quidam  solos  bonos  spiritus  intelligunt ;  alii  solos  malos,  alii  denique  tarn  bonos 
quam  malos  Estius,  2.  1183. 


506  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

adopted  the  same  belief.  This  interpretation  has  been  ibllowea 
by  the  Trent  Catechism,  the  Rhemish  annotators,  and  indeed 
by  the  generality  of  modern  popish  theologians. 

The  prison,  according  to  a  second  party,  is  hell,  in  which 
those  who,  in  the  days  of  Noah,  were  incredulous,  were,  in  the 
time  of  Peter,  incarcerated  for  their  unbelief.1  These  spirits 
were  prior  to  the  flood,  in  the  body  and  on  earth  ;  but,  in  the 
apostolic  age,  were  consigned  to  the  place  of  endless  punish- 
ment. To  these,  Jesus,  before  their  death,  preached  not  in  his 
humanity  but  in  his  divinity  :  riot  by  his  own  but  by  Noah's 
ministry.  He  inspired  the  antediluvian  patriarch  to  preach 
righteousness  to  a  degenerated  people.  He  officiated,  says 
Calmet,  '  not  in  person  but  by  his  spirit,  which  he  communica- 
ted to  Noah.  Augustine  among  the  ancients,  and  Aquinas 
among  the  schoolmen,  were  the  great  patrons  of  this  interpre- 
tation :  and  the  African  saint  and  the  angelic  doctor  have  been 
followed  by  Bede,  Hassel,  Calmet,  and  many  other  commen- 
tators both  in  the  Romish  and  reformed  communions.2 

The  interpretation,  which  would  make  the  prison  to  signify 
purgatory,  is  entirely  modern,  and  was  uttered  unknown  to  the 
ancients.  The  exposition  is  not  to  be  found  in  all  the  ponderous 
tomes  of  the  fathers.  Bellarmine  and  Alexander,  in  their  la- 
boured attempts  to  evince  posthumous  purgation,  omit  this  pas- 
sage. The  cardinal  has  adduced  many  scriptural  quotations  to 
prove  an  unscriptural  absurdity  ;  and  the  sorbonnist  has  endea- 
voured to  support  the  same  supposition  from  the  pages  of  reve- 
lation. Both,  however,  omit  the  words  of  Pope  Peter.  The 
omission  is  a  silent  confession  of  the  argument's  utter  incompe- 
tency,  in  the  opinion  of  these  distinguished  authors,  and  a  con- 
firmation of  its  novelt}'  as  an  evidence  of  purgatorian  purification 
after  death.  Bellarmine's  nineteen  quotations  comprehend  all 
that  were  alleged  for  this  theory  in  his  day.  Alexander  re- 
viewed all  the  scriptural  proofs,  which  had  been  formerly  urged 
on  this  controversy.  But  neither  Bellarmine  nor  Alexander 
mention  this  prison  of  the  antediluvians.  The  citation  was 
pressed  into  the  ranks  by  some  modern  scribblers,  who  were 
at  a  loss  for  an  argument. 

1  Christ  descendit  dans  le  lieu  on  les  ames  des  saints  Patriarches  etoient  deten- 
ues.  Calm.  24.  146.  Cat.  Trid.  35. 

3  Augustinus  melius  exponit  ut  referatur  non  ad  descensum  Christi  ad  inferos. 
His  praedicavit  qui  increduli  fuerant  aliquando.  Noe  praedicanti.  Aquin.  Par. 
111.  Quaest.  52.  Art.  11.  P.  145.  Augustin,  2.  57.9.  Ep.  164.  Ipse  ante 
diluvium  iis,  qui  tune  increduli  erant  et  carnaliter  vivebant,  Bpiritu  veniens  praedi- 
cavit. Ipse  enim  per  Spiritum  Sanctum  erat  in  Noe  et  pravis  illius  hominibus  ut 
ad  meliora  converterentur,  praedicavit.  Beda,  5.  706.  Christ  par  son  esprit,  dont 
il  remplit.  Noe,  precha  aux  homines  incredules  de  ce  terns  la.  Christ  precha 
done  a  les  incredules,  non  en  personne  ni  visiblement,  mais  par  son  Esprit  qu'il 
avoit  communique  a  Noe.  Calmet,  24.  159.  Du  Pin,  1.  386. 


PURGATORY    DESTITUTE    OF    TRADITIONAL    AUTHORITY.       507 

The  prison,  therefore,  according  to  some,  was  hell ;  and,  ac- 
cording to  others,  the  limbo  of  the  Jews.  None,  except  a  few 
infatuated,  scribbling,  nonplussed  moderns,  make  it  signify  pur- 
gatory. Bede  and  Bellarmine,  however,  have  placed  hell, 
purgatory,  and  the  gaol  of  the  Hebrews  in  the  same  neighbour- 
hood ;  and  our  Lord,  when  he  descended  to  the  subterranean 
lodgings  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  their  companions, 
had  perhaps  given  the  citizens  of  purgatory  a  call  and  an 
exhortation.1  He  might,  when  he  was  in  the  vicinity,  have 
paid  these  suffering  subterraneans  a  visit  and  preached  them  a 
sermon  ;  though  a  mass,  if  modern  accounts  may  be  credited, 
would  have  been  more  useful.  But  the  Son  of  God,  it  would 
appear,  was  some  way  or  other,  unaccountably  guilty  of  neg- 
lecting the  latter  ceremony. 

Purgatory  is  a  variation  from  tradition  as  well  as  from  revela- 
tion. None  of  the  ancients,  for  400  years  after  the  Christian 
era,  mention  any  such  place.  The  intermediate  state  of  purifi- 
cation of  souls  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  is  unknown 
land  in  the  monuments  of  Christian  antiquity. 

Many  of  the  fathers  testify,  in  the  plainest  language,  against 
an  intermediate  state  of  expiation.  From  these  may,  as  a 
specimen,  be  selected  Augustine,  Ephraim,  and  Epiphanius.2 
Augustine,  while  he  owns  a  heaven  and  a  hell,  rejects,  in  un- 
qualified and  emphatical  language,  'the  idea  of  a  third  place, 
as  unknown  to  the  church  and  foreign  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures.' 
Ephraim,  like  Augustine,  'acknowledges  a  heaven  and  a  hell, 
but  disclaims,  in  the  clearest  terms,  the  belief  of  a  middle 
place.'  '  To  avoid  hell  is,'  he  avers,  'to  obtain  heaven,  and  to 
miss  heaven  is  to  enter  hell.'  Scripture,  he  adds,  teaches  no 
third  region.  Epiphanius  admits  f  no  use  or  advantage  of  piety 
or  of  repentance  after  de^ath.' 

The  silence  of  the  ancients  on  this  theory  has  been  granted 
by  many  moderns;  such  as  Cajetan,  Barns,  Alphonsus,  Fisher, 
and  Polydorus.  Cajetan  remarks  the  omission  of  this  topic, 
in  the  scriptural  canon,  as  well  as  in  the  works  of  the  ancient 
Greek  and  Latin  theologians.  Barns,  on  this  subject,  admits 


1  Purgatorium  eet  ad  ripam  inferni.  Faber  2.  449.  Est  sub  terrae  vicinus  in- 
ferno. Dens.  7.  353. 

Infernum  et  Purgatorium  wmt  loco  ricina.  Purgatorium  esse  infra  viscera  ter- 
rae inferno  ipsi  vicinum.  Bellarmiu,  11.  6.  Beda,  V.  12. 

3  Tertium  penitus  ignoramus,  immo  nee  esse  in  scripturis  sanctis  inveniemus. 
Aug.  10.  40.  Hyp  V.  5.  Extra  duos  hosce  ordines,  alius  non  est  ordo  medius. 
Loquor  autem  de  altero  quidem  superno,  altero  vero  inferno.  Effugere  gehennam, 
hoc  ipsum  sit  regnum  coelorum  ingredi,  quemadmodum  et  eo  excidere  in  gehen- 
nam intrare.  Ephraim,  19,  20. 

Ov&t  fjLtjv  rfopictytof  fucfcjSftaf  ot>5«  fistavotas  peta  davatov*     Epiph.   I.  502. 


508  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPER5T 

the  silence  of  revelation,  tradition,  and  councils.     Similar  con- 
cessions have  been  made  by  Alphonsus,  Fisher,  and  Polydorus.1 

The  advocates  of  this  dogma  do  not  even  pretend  to  the 
authority  of  the  earlier  fathers ;  such  as  Barnabas,  Clemens, 
Hermas,  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Justin,  Tatian,  Ireneus,  Melito, 
Athenagoras,  and  Theophilus.  Its  abettors  appeal  to  no  writers, 
who  flourished  for  200  years  after  the  Christian  era;  nor,  if  we 
except  those  who  found  their  speculation  on  the  illogical  argu- 
ment of  prayer  for  the  dead,  till  the  fourth  century.  These 
authors  had  often  occasion  to  treat  on  the  subjects  of  heaven, 
hell,  death,  judgment,  and  the  resurrection.  Future  happiness 
and  misery  were  frequently,  in  their  works,  made  to  pass  in 
review  before  the  mind  of  the  reader,  amid  an  entire  omission 
of  any  temporary  state  of  punishment  or  expiation.  Ignatius, 
addressing  the  Magnesians,  teaches  a  state  of  death  and  of  life 
without  the  slightest  allusion  to  a  middle  place.  Polycarp 
wrote  on  the  resurrection ;  Athenagoras,  the  Athenian  philoso- 
pher, composed  a  whole  treatise  on  the  same  topic  :  and  yet 
neither  of  these  authors  betrays  a  single  hint,  or  offers  a  solitary 
observation  on  the  subject  of  purgatory.  This  theme,  so 
lucrative  and  notorious  in  modern  times,  was  unknown  to  the 
simple  authors  and  Christians  of  antiquity. 

The  Latins,  on  this  question,  in  the  council  of  Florence, 
quoted  for  authority  Athanasius,  Hilary,  Basil,  Gregory,  Am- 
brosius,  Augustine,  Cyril,  and  Leo.  Bellarmine,  Alexander., 
and  many  other  moderns  refer  to  the  same  authors.2  But  the 
earliest  of  these  flourished  in  the  end  of  the  fourth  century 
when  error  and  superstition  began  their  reign,  and  after  a 
period  of  near  four  hundred  years  had  elapsed  from  the  intro- 
duction of  Christianity.  These  writers,  besides,  only  testify 
the  prevalence  of  intercession  for  the  dead.  But  this  super- 
stition, notwithstanding  its  absurdity,  implies,  as  shall  afterward 
be  shown,  no  middle  place  of  purification  between  death  and 
the  resurrection. 

Bellarmine,  nevertheless,  and  many  who  follow  his  steps, 
have  endeavoured  to  find  this  theory  in  the  fathers.  This  they 
attempt  in  two  ways.  One  consists  in  confounding  the  Orige- 
nian  ordeal  with  the  popish  purgatory.  Origen,  carried  on  the 
wings  of  vain  speculation,  imagined  that  all,  saint  and  sinner 
prophet,  martyr,  and  confessor,  would,  after  the  resurrection 
at  the  last  judgment,  pass  through  the  fire  of  the  general  con- 
flagration.8 This  passage  through  the  igneous  element,  in  the 
scheme  of  the  Grecian  visionary,  would  try  and  purify  men  as 

1  Cajetan,  c.  2.     Barns,  $  9.     Alphon.  viii.     Fish.  Art.  18.     Polydor.  viii 
8  Labb.  18.  1149.     Bell.  1.  6.     Alex.  D.  41. 

3  Homines  omnes  igne  examinationis  iri  definlt.     Huet.   1.  139.     Bell.  1.  11 
Estius,  1.  216.     Calm.  22.  362 


ADMISSIONS    OP    ROMISH  WRITERS.  509 

the  furnace  separates  the  alloy  from  the  precious  metals,  such 
as  silver  and  gold.  This  chimera,  broached  by  Origen,  was 
adopted  by  Hilary,  Ambrosius,  Gregory,  Lactantius,  Jerome, 
Ephraim,  Basil,  and  many  of  the  schoolmen. 

But  the  ordeal  of  Origen  differs  widely  from  the  purgatory 
of  Bellarmine.  Origen's  scrutiny  begins  after  the  general 
resurrection,  and  will  be  accomplished  in  the  universal  confla- 
gration. Bellarmine's  purgatory  begins  at  the  day  of  death, 
and  will  terminate  at  or  before  the  day  of  general  judg- 
ment. Its  inhabitants  will  then  be  translated  to  heaven,  and 
the  habitation  left  empty.  These  two  states  of  purgation, 
therefore,  will  not  exist  even  at  the  same  time.  The  one  ends 
before  the  other  begins. 

Origen's  process  differs  from  Bellarmine's  also  in  the  persons 
exposed  to  the  refining  operation.  The  Grecian  fanatic's  hot 
bath  extends  to  all,  soul  and  body,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent. 
The  saint,  the  sinner,  and  the  middling  class,  whether  guilty 
of  venial  or  mortal  delinquency,  must  submit,  in  this  specula- 
tor's system,  to  the  devouring  and  scrutinizing  flame.  Holy 
Mary  herself  must  fry,  in  undistinguished  torment,  with  less 
exalted  mortals.  Even  her  God-bearing  ladyship  can  claim  no 
exemption.  The  only  exception  will  be  Immanuel,  who  is  the 
Righteousness  of  God.  The  Roman  superstitionist's  labora- 
tory, on  the  contrary,  is  only  for  the  intermediate  class,  who 
are  bespattered  with  venial  pollution.  His  furnace,  however 
warm  and  capacious,  will  not  be  allowed  to  roast  the  saint,  the 
martyr,  or  confessor,  and,  much  less,  the  mother  of  God. 

These  distinctions  will  appear  from  the  works  of  Origen,  Hi- 
lary, Ambrosius,  Augustine,  Lactantius,  Jerome,  Ephraim. 
Basil,  Aquinas,  Paulinus,  and  Isidorus.1  Origen  represents  all, 

\ 

1  Post  resurrectionem  ex  morte,  indigeamus  sacramento  eluente  nos  et  pur- 
gante.  Nemo  enira  absque  sordibus  resurgere  poterit.  Veniendum  est  omnibus 
ad  ignem.  Omnes  nos  venire  necesse  est  ad  ilium  ignem,  etiamsi  Paulus  sit  aliqui* 
vel  Petrus.  Origen,  Horn.  3,  6,  14. 

An  diem  judicii  concupiscimus,  in  quo  nobis  est  ille  indefessus  obeundus,  in  quo 
Bubeunda  stint  gravia  ilia  expiandae  a  peccatis  animse  supplicia  ?  Beatse  MarijB 
animam  gladius  pertransivit.  Hilary  in  Psalm  cxviii.  P.  856.  Hilarius  insiuuat 
etiam,  beatam  Mariam  transire  debuisse  per  ilium  ingem.  Bellarmin,  II.  1. 

Igne  purgabuntur  filii  Levi,  igne  Ezechiel,  igne  Daniel.  Amb.  1.  693.  in  Psalm 
xxxvi.  Omnes  oportet  transire  per  flammas,  aive  ille  Joannes  sit,  sive  ille  sit 
Petrus.  Arab.  1.  1064.  in  Psalm  cxviii. 

Per  judicium  purgata  novissimum  eis  quoque  igne  mundatis.  Augustin,  C.  D. 
XX.  25.  Justos  cum  judicaverit  etiam  igne  eos  examinabit.  Lactan.  VII.  21. 
Dominus  ad  ignem  judicium  vocare  se  monstrat.  Ad  sanctos  illius  pervenit. 
Jerom,  2.  1434.  in  Amos  vii.  Transibimus  ignem.  Per  i<mem  transituris  sit. 
Ephraim,  91.  441. 

Ev  fw  rtupe,  t^e,  xpKJscoj  j3atfcwoj.  Aaouevcw  *»$  ev  <tu>  xavuaft,  5epc*£co$.  Basil. 
1.  475.  in  Esa.  IV. 

Ignis  ille  finalis  conflagrationis  aget  in  malos  et  bonos.  Elementa  purgnbuntuz 
per  ign^m  etiam  in  corporibua  electorum.  Aquin.  III.  74.  VIII  P.  563,  564. 


610  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

I 

after  the  resurrection,  as  needing  and  undergoing  the  purifying 
flame.  He  excepts  not  even  Peter  and  Paul.  Hilary  subjects 
every  individual,  even  Lady  Mary,  to  the  burning  scrutiny. 
His  saintship  transfers  even  the  queen  of  heaven,  without  any 
ceremony,  to  the  rude  discipline.  Arnbrosius,  like  Origen  and 
Hilary,  urges  the  necessity  of  such  an  examination,  and  con 
signs,  to  the  common  conflagration,  the  Jewish  prophets  and 
Christian  apostles,  Ezekiel,  Daniel,  Peter,  and  Paul.  Similar 
statements  may  be  found  in  Augustine,  Lactantius,  Jerome, 
Ephraim,  Basil,  Paulinus  and  Isidorus.  The  same  system, 
according  to  Bellarmine,  Calmet,  and  Estius,  was  patronized 
by  Oecumenius,  Rupert,  Eucherius,  Alcuin,  Haimo,  and 
Lombard. 

Bellarmine,  on  this  subject,  acts  an  inconsistent  and  uncandid 
part.  He  first  cites  Origen,  Hilary,  Ambrosius,  Lactantius, 
Jerome,  and  Basil,  in  favour  of  his  purgatorian  theory  ;  and 
afterward  without  any  hesitation  admits  and  even  exposes  their 
error.  The  Jesuit  transubstantiates  the  Origenian  ordeal  into 
the  popish  purgatory  ;  and  then,  in  sheer  inconsistency,  shews, 
with  clear  discrimination,  the  distinction  between  the  two  sys- 
tems and  the  two  kinds  of  purgation  ;  and  characterizes  Origen- 
ism  as  a  mistake,  if  not  a  heresy.1  This  was  to  vary  from  him- 
self, and  to  give  up  the  authority  of  these  authors,  whom  he 
had  quoted  in  support  of  his  darling  superstition. 

Bellarmine,  in  these  concessions,  has  been  followed,  and  with 
reason,  by  Calmet,  Estius,  Courayer,  and  Du  Pin.2  Calmet, 
in  his  comment,  represents  Origen,  Hilary,  Ambrosius,  Lactan- 
tius, Basil,  Rupert,  Eucherius,  and  Alcuin  as  teaching  the  ne- 
cessity of  those  who  are  the  most  holy  to  pass  through  the  fire 
to  heaven.  Estius  states  the  same,  and  adds  the  names  of  Au- 
gustine, Haimo,  Lombard,  and  Aquinas.  Courayer  on  Paolo, 
as  well  as  Du  Pin  in  his  account  of  these  authors,  gives  a 
similar  representation.  Calmet,  Estius,  Courayer,  and  Du  Pin, 
therefore,  like  Bellarmine,  abandon  this  argument  for  an  inter- 
mediate place  of  expiation. 

The  patrons  of  Romanism  argue  also  from  the  prayers,  pre- 
ferred by  the  ancients  for  the  dead,  which,  they  suppose,  imply 
purgatory.  The  argument,  taken  from  supplication  for  depar- 

Opus  per  omne  curret  ignis  arbiter,  quod  non  cremarit  flamma,  seel  probaverit. 
Nostras  illo  punget  in  igne  animas.  Paulinus,  345,  686. 

Sunt  quiedam  crimina,  quae  per  ignem  judicii  purgari  possunt.     Isidores,  c.  13. 

-  Bell.  2.  1.  et  1.  6. 

2  Les  uns  croyent  que  toutes  les  ames,  memes  celles  des  plus  justes,  8ortant  do 
ce  monde,  passent  par  le  feu  avant  que  d'arriver  au  Ciel.  Calmet.  22.  362.  Unus 
et  idem  ignis  prohabit  omnes.  De  igne  novissimi  diei,  senserunt  veteres.  Estina 
1.  216.  Origenes,  Lactauce,  Hilaire,  et  quelques  autres  avoient  cru  qu'an  jour 
du  jugement,  tous  seroient  purifiez  par  le  leu.  Courayer,  in  Paol.  2.  644. 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD  REFUTED,   511 

ted   souls,  has   been   urged  with  great   confidence   but  little 
success.     The  fact  is  admitted,  but  the  consequence  is  denied. 

The  Maccabean  history  has  been  cited,  to  evince  the  belief 
of  the  Jews  in  purgatorian  expiation.  But  this  book  is  unca- 
nonical.  Its  canonicity,  doubted,  says  Bellarmine,  by  the  ancient 
Christians,  was  rejected  by  the  Jews,  and  denied  by  Cyril, 
Jerome,  Hilary,  Rurfinus,  Gregory,  and  the  council  of  Laodicea.1 
This  authority,  if  prejudice  were  not  blind,  might  decide  the 
controversy. 

The  Apocryphal  work  has  a  greater  want  than  that  of  canoni- 
city, and  is  deficient  in  morality  arid,  in  this  instance,  in  mean- 
ing. The  author  commends  suicide.  He  eulogized  Razis  for 
a,  bold  attempt  to  kill  himself  with  his  sword,  rather  than  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  enemy.  This  act,  the  historian  calls  noble, 
though  contrary  to  the  law  of  God.2 

His  reason  for  praying  for  the  dead  is  senseless,  as  his  enco- 
mium on  self-assassination  is  immoral.  Judas  collected  money 
for  this  purpose,  because  "  he  was  mindful  of  the  resurrection." 
Intercession  for  departed  spirits,  if  the  slain  should  not  rise 
again,  would,  he  said,  be  '  superfluous  and  vain.'3  But  the 
resurrection  refers  to  the  body ;  while  supplication  for  the 
deceased  refers  to  the  soul.  The  body,  at  death,  goes  not  to 
purgatory,  even  according  to  Romish  theology  ;  but  to  the  tomb, 
there  to  wait  the  summons  of  the  archangel.  The  immortal 
spirit,  if  in  a  place  of  punishment,  might  need  the  petition  of 
the  living  ;  though  the  body  remain  in  the  grave.  The  design 
of  mass  and  supplication  for  the  departed  is  not  to  deliver  the 
body  from  the  sepulchre,  but  the  soul  from  purgatory,  which 
will  be  entirely  unpeopled  at  the  resurrection,  of  which  Judas 
was  so  mindful. 

The  Jews,  who  fell  in  the  battle  of  Idumea,  were  guilty  of 
idolatry,  which  is  a  mortal  sin.  The  coats  of  the  slain  contained 
things  consecrated  to  the  idols  of  Jamnia.  These  votive  offer- 
ings, the  unhappy  men  retained  till  their  death  :  and  must, 
therefore,  as  guilty  not  merely  of  venial  frailty  but  mortal  trans- 
gression, have  been  in  a  place  not  of  temporary,  but  everlasting 
punishment ;  and,  therefore,  beyond  the  aid  of  sacrifice  or 
supplication.  The  Maccabean  historian  was  as  bad  a  theolo- 
gian as  moralist. 

The  modest  author,  however,  makes  no  high  pretensions 
He  wrote  his  history,  he  remarks,  according  to  his  ability.  This, 
if  well,  was  as  he  wished  ;  but  if  ill,  would,  he  hoped,  be 
excused.  He  did,  it  seems,  as  well  as  he  could,  which,  UP 
doubt,  is  all  a  reasonable  person  would  expect.  This,  how 

1  2  Maccab.  xii.  44.     Cyril,  66.     Jerom,  5.  141.     Hilary,  615.     Crab.  1.  380. 
3  Maccab.  xiv.  41.  3  Maccab.  xii.  43. 


512  THE  VARIATIONS  OF  POPERY: 

ever,  as  the  author  suggests,  is  one  part  of  his  history,  whier 
certainly  does  not  discover  the  hand  of  a  master.1 

The  argument,  at  any  rate,  is  in  this  case,  taken  from  prayer 
for  the  dead,  which  is  inconclusive.  Intercessions  were  prefer- 
red for  the  good  and  the  bad,  for  the  saint  and  the  sinner,  in  the 
days  of  antiquity.  These  supplications,  says  Courayer  in 
Paolo,  *  are  much  more  ancient  and  general  than  the  doctrine 
of  purgatory,  and  were  offered  for  martyrs  and  confessors.' 
The  dogma,  therefore,  being  more  recent  than  such  supplications, 
cannot  be  founded  on  this  basis.2  The  supposition  does  not 
necessarily  imply  a  temporary  state  of  punishment,  but  may 
be  performed  for  enhancing  the  eternal  joys  of  the  blessed,  or 
alleviating  the  endless  sorrows  of  those  who  are  sentenced  to 
destruction. 

The  Christian  fathers,  from  the  days  of  Tertullian,  who  is 
the  first  who  mentions  this  custom,  prayed  for  their  friends  after 
their  departure  from  this  earth  and  their  entrance  on  a  world 
of  spirits.  Tertullian,  about  the  end  of  the  second  century, 
admonished  a  wido\v  to  pray  for  her  late  husband,  and  to 
commemorate  the  anniversary  of  his  death.  This,  however, 
was  after  his  apostacy  to  Montanism.  But  the  superstition  is 
natural,  and  soon,  in  consequence,  became  general.  The  people, 
says  Eusebius,  *  wept  at  the  funeral  of  Constantine,  and  sup- 
plicated God  with  tears  and  lamentations  for  the  emperor's 
soul.'3  Augustine,  in  a  similar  manner,  prayed  for  Monica ; 
and  Ambrosius  for  Valentinian  and  Theodosius. 

All  this,  however,  affords  no  argument  for  purgatory.  The 
ancient  Christians  supplicated  for  those,  who,  the  moderns  will 
admit,  could  not  be  in  a  place  of  purgatorian  punishment  or 
pain.  Constantine's  spirit,  while  the  people  prayed,  had,  says 
Eusebius  '  ascended  to  its  God.'  Monica's  soul,  before  Augus- 
tine's intercessions,  was,  the  saint  believed,  in  heaven.  She 
already  enjoyed  what  he  asked.  Valentinian  had  ascended  to 
the  flowery  scenes  of  delight,  while  he  enjoyed  the  fruition  of 
eternal  life,  and  borrowed  light  from  the  Sun  of  Righteousness.1 
Theodosius,  while  Ambrosius  petitioned,  '  lived  in  immortal 
light  and  lasting  tranquillity.'  The  saint,  nevertheless,  resolved 
that  no  day  or  night  should  pass  without  supplication  for  the 
deceased  and  glorified  emperor.4 

1  Maccab.  xii.  40.  et  xv.  33. 

3  Ces  prieres  etant  bien  plus  anciennes  et  plus  generates  que  la  doctrine  du  pur 
gatoire,  puisqu'elles  se  faisoient  pour  les  martyrs  et  les  confesseurs.  Paolo,  2.  633. 

3  Toj  tv%a$  vrttp  fov  jSacrttacoj   tyvzys,  arts&iSoaav  *«  ©fu.     Eusebius,  iv.  71. 
Tertiillian,  501. 

4  IIpoj  T!QV  a/vitov®£ov  avfha[*-f3avt'to.     Euseb.  iv.  64,     Credo  jam  feceris  quod 
te  rego.     Aug.  confess.  IX.  13.  p.  170. 

Nunc  lumen  a  sole  justitiae  mutuata  clarum  diem  ducis.     Amb.  5.  114. 
Fruitur  Theodosius  luce  perpetua  et  trauquillitate  diuturna.    Ambrosius,  5.  121 


ARGUMENT  FROM  PRAYERS  FOR  THE  DEAD  REFUTED.   513 

The  ancient  Liturgies,  collected  by  Renaudot  and  ascribed  to 
James,  Mark,  Clemens,  Cyril,  Gregory,  Chrysostom,  and  Basil, 
contain  forms  of  prayer  for  prophets,  patriarchs,  apostles,  evan- 
gelists, martyrs,  confessors,  and  the  mother  of  God.  The 
liturgy  of  James  contains  a  '  commemoration  of  the  departed 
faithful,  and  a  prayer  to  God  who  received  their  souls,  for  a 
merciful  pardon  of  their  sins.'  Mark's  Liturgy  '  asks  rest  and 
remission  for  all  who  had  slept  in  the  faith,  left  this  world,  gone 
to  God,  and  arrived  at  the  mansions  of  felicity.'  The  Liturgy 
of  Clemens  '  supplicates  God  to  bless  all,  who,  having  run  the 
course  of  this  life,  had  come  to  heaven,  with  tranquillity  in  his 
spiritual  bosom  and  gladness  in  the  habitations  of  light  and  joy.' 
Cyril's  comprehends  '  a  commemoration  of  all  the  holy  .patri- 
archs, prophets,  apostles,  martyrs,  confessors,  and  especially 
the  most  glorious  god-bearing  virgin,  and  a  prayer  for  the  peace 
of  all  their  souls  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob.' 
Gregory's  contains  '  a  prayer,  used  in  presenting  the  unbloody 
sacrifice,  for  the  repose  of  the  fathers  who  had  slept  in  the  faith, 
a  supplication  for  their  refreshment,  and  a  memento  of  lady 
Mary  mother  of  God.'  Chrysostom's  '  mention  those  who  had 
left  this  world,  and  gone  in  purity  of  soul  and  body  to  God, 
and  prays  for  their  repose  in  the  celestial  habitations.'  Basil's 
'  remembers  all  the  departed  clergy  and  laity,  particularly  the 
most  holy,  glorious,  immaculate,  blessed,  god-bearing  lady,  and 
prays  for  the  tranquillity  of  their  souls  in  the  bosom  of  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  in  the  bowers  of  bliss  in  the 
paradise  of  pleasure,  whence,  in  the  light  of  the  saints,  fly 
sorrow,  sighing,  and  sadness.'1 

Intercessions,  in  these  prayers,  were,  in  this  manner,  pre- 
ferred for  lady  Mary  herself.  Some  of  these  forms  had  been 

1  Deprecamur  Christum,  ut  praeste^t  illos  dignos  venia  delictorum  et  remissione 
peccatorura.  Renaudot,  2.  37. 

Illis  quietem  tribuas,  qui,  a  nobis  profecti,  ad  te  migraverunt.  Remitte  omnia 
peccata  eorum.  Renaudot,  2.  37. 

Illis  omnibus,  qui  stadium  vitse  decurrentes,  perfect!  et  pracelari  coram  te  ap- 
parnerunt,  quietem  praesta.  Domine,  in  sum  illo  spirituali.  Da  illis  spiritum 
gaudii  in  habitabulis  lucis  et  laetitise.  Renaudot,  2.  196. 

Memento  omnium  sanctorum  patriarcharum,  prophetarum.  Apostolorum,  evan- 
gelistarum,  martyrum,  confessorum,  praecipue  autem  sanctse  gloriosissimae  Deipa- 
rae  semper  virginis  sanctae  Mariae.  Requiescant  animne  illorum  omnes  in  sinu 
patrum  nostrorum  Abraham,  Isaac,  et  Jacob.  Renaudot,  1.  41.  42. 

OfFeram  tibi  hoc  sacrificium  rationabile  incruentum  in  requiem  et  refrigeriura 
patrum  nostrorum,  qui  olim  obdormierunt  in  fide  orthodoxa.  Dignare,  Domine, 
recordari  omnium  sanctorum  patriarcharnm  prophetarum,  apostolorum,  evangelis 
tarum,  martyrum,  confessorum,  praecipue  vero  sanctae  gloria  plenae  semper  vir- 
ginis genetricis  Dei  sanctae.  Da  illis  omnibus  requiem.  Renaudot,  1.  26.  33.  34. 

Memento  illorum,  qui,  cum  puritate  cordis  et  sanctitate  animae  et  corporis,  ex 
saeculo  isto  egressi  sunt  et  ad  te,  Deus,  pervenerunt.  Quietem  illis  praesta  in 
habitaculis  tuis  coelestibus.  Reuaudot,  2.  250. 

Mememto  etiam,  Domiue,  omnium  qui  dormierunt  et  quieverunt  in  sacerdotio  et 
omni  ordine  laicorum.  Dignare,  Domine,  animas  eorum  omnium  quiete  donaro  in 
sinu  sanctorum  Abraham,  Isaac,  et  Jacob.  Renaudot,  1.  18.  72. 

33 


614  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

in  use  for  hundreds  of  years  and,  therefore,  if  petitions  for  the 
dead  suppose  a  state  of  purgatorian  punishment,  her  ladyship, 
during  all  this  time,  must  have  been  in  a  pretty  situation.  The 
Roman  pontiff  and  priesthood,  who  wield  all  the  treasury  of 
the  church  and  all  the  efficacy  of  the  mass  for  departed  souls, 
had,  it  would  appear,  neglected  the  goddess  of  Romanism 
These,  it  seems,  have  shown  little  respect  for  their  virgin 
patroness,  when  they  left  the  mother  of  God  for  ages  in  such 
vulgar  and  smoky  apartments.  His  supremacy,  to  whom,  i» 
appears,  this  gloomy  territory  belongs,  and  who  has  authority 
over  its  imprisoned  spirits,  should  have  paid  some  attention  tc 
her  ladyship.1  His  holiness  surely  might  have  spared  some- 
thing, from  the  fund  of  supererogation  for  such  a  particulaT 
friend.  The  ecclesiastical  bank  must  have  been  sadly  ex 
hausted,when  her  god-bearing  ladj'ship  could  not,  for  so  long  & 
time,  be  purchased  out  of  purgatory.  The  clergy  should  have 
plied  the  mass  and  the  Latin  liturgy,  which,  if  wielded  with 
the  precision  of  modern  times,  would,  in  their  amazing  potency, 
soon  have  enabled  holy  Mary  to  scale  the  walls  of  the  purga- 
torian prison,  which  is  said  to  be  in  a  very  warm  climate,  and 
to  breathe  a  cooler  atmosphere  in  some  more  respectable  and 
healthy  seat.  The  prison  of  purgatory  was  certainly  a  very 
sorry  accommodation,  during  so  long  a  period,  for  the  queen  of 
heaven. 

The  ancient  Christians  prayed  for  those  in  hell,  as  well  as 
for  those  in  heaven.  This  fact  is  stated,  and  the  reasons  are 
assigned  by  Cyril,  Epiphanius,  Chrysostom,  and  Augustine.2 
These  -supplications,  it  was  alleged,  increase  celestial  happi- 
ness and  diminish  infernal  misery.  The  torments  of  the  guilty, 
though,  in  the  world  of  spirits,  they  could  not  be  extinguished, 
might,  it  was  believed,  be  extenuated  ;  and  the  joys  of  the 
just,  though  great,  might  be  augmented.  No  sufferer  indeed 
could,  by  any  advocacy,  be  translated  from  punishment  to 
felicity.  No  transmission  could  be  effected  from  the  regions  of 
sorrow  to  the  mansions  of  joy.  But  the  enjoyment  of  heaven 
might  be  enhanced,  and  the  pains  of  hell  be  alleviated  by  the 
intercessions  of  the  faithful. 

Purgatory  therefore  formed  no  part  in  the  faith  of  Christian 
antiquity.  The  idea,  however,  though  excluded  from  Chris- 
tianity, may  be  found  in  the  monuments  of  Pagan,  Jewish,  and 


1  Papa  habet  auctoritatem  super  animos  purgatorii.     Faber,  2.  501. 

3  MfyKftqv  ovytitv  jturtivwtts  sGioBat  -raij  tyv%a.is  vrttp  w  77  Seqais 
Uyril,  Myst.  V.  p.  297.  Atxatwv  jtoiovpsda  1rtv  IJLV^^V  xa<,  vrtep 
Qtystet  8e  xat  •}]  vrtfp  wtw  yivo/wvj?  tv%ij.  Epiph.  H.  75.  p.  911. 
•yivrjtw,  pwQov  XOA  cwi'tSotffttf.  Chrys.  7.  362.  Ut  tolerabilior  fiat  damuatio. 
Aug.  7.  2.  239.  Non  aeterno  supplicio  finem  daiido,  Bed  levamen  adhibeutlo. 
Aug.  7.  239. 


PAGAN   AND   JEWISH    PURGATORY.  515 

Mahometan  mythology.  A  purgatorian  region  and  process 
obtained  a  place  in  the  Platonic  philosophy,  near  four  hundred 
years  before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era.  Plato 
taught  this  theory  in  his  Phaedo  and  Gorgias.  The  Grecian 
sage  divided  men  into  three  classes,  the  good,  the  bad,  and  the 
middling.  The  good  comprised  men  distinguished  for  tempe- 
rance, justice,  fortitude,  liberality,  and  truth.  Philosophers 
and  legislators,  whose  wisdom  and  laws  had  conferred  im- 
provement and  happiness  on  mankind,  were  all  comprehended 
in  this  division.  The  bad  included  all  who  had  spent  their 
days  in  the  perpetration  of  aggravated  crimes,  such  as  sacrilege 
and  murder.  The  middling  kind  occupied  the  space  between 
the  patrons  of  sanctity  and  atrocity  :  and  their  neutrality,  at  a 
distance  from  both  extremes,  left  them  open  to  purgation  and 
amendment.  The  good,  at  death,  passed,  without  pain  or 
delay,  'to  the  islands  of  the  blessed,  and  to  the  habitations  of 
unparalleled  beauty.'  The  bad,  at  death,  sunk  immediately 
into  endless  torment  in  Tartarus.  The  intermediate  descrip- 
tion, 'purified  in  Acheron,  and  punished  till  their  guilt  was 
expiated,  were  at  length  admitted  to  the  participation  of 
felicity.'1 

This  fiction,  Plato  embellished  with  all  the  pomp  of  language 
and  metaphor.  The  Athenian  sage  possessed  perhaps  the 
greatest  luxuriance  of  imagination  and  elegance  of  expression 
which  have  adorned  the  annals  of  philosophy.  His  theory,  in 
consequence,  though  chimerical  in  itself,  assumes  an  interest  and 
borrows  a  charm  from  the  witchery  of  its  author's  style,  the 
grandeur  of  his  conceptions,  and  the  colouring  of  his  fancy. 
The  Grecian  philosophy,  on  this  subject,  has  been  decorated 
with  the  fascinations  of  Roman  eloquence  and  poetry.  Cicero, 
in  his  dream  of  Scipio,  has  slothed  Plato's  speculation  with  all 
the  beauty  of  diction.  The  soul,  says  the  Roman  orator,  which 
has  wallowed  in  sensuality,  submitted  to  the  dominion  of  licen- 
tiousness; and  violated  the  laws  of  God  and  man,  will  not,  after 
its  separation  from  the  body,  attain  happiness,  till  it  shall,  for 
many  ages,  have  been  tossed  in  restless  agitation  through  the 
world.  Virgil  has  inwoven  the  Platonic  fiction  in  his  immortal 
JEneid  ;  and  represented  souls,  in  the  infernal  world,  as  making 
expiation  and  obtaining  purification  by  the  application  of  water, 
wind,  and  fire.2 

Such  is  the  dream  of  Platonic  philosophy,  Ciceronian  elo- 
quence, and  Virgilian  verse.  The  existence  of  a  Purgatorian 
world,  if  Plato,  Cicero,  and  Virgil  were  canonical,  could  be 


1  Ot   p,sv   a,v   ot,  Sofjwut  ju*tf«$  jStyt-wxfvac  TtopevOtvtf  $  srtt>   fo 
flcupo^Evot.     Plato,  Phaed.  84.     Aug.  733.     Brug.  1.  378.     Bell.  1.  7. 
»  Cicero,  3.  397.     Virgil.  JSn.  VI. 

33* 


616  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

easily  evinced.  The  proofs,  omitted  in  the  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian revelation,  might  be  found,  with  great  facility,  in  the  Gre- 
cian and  Roman  classics.  The  topography  and  polity  of  the 
purgatorian  empire,  which  are  unmentioned  in  the  sacred  annals, 
are  delineated  in  the  heathen  poetry  and  mythology.  The 
council  of  Trent  was  silly,  or  it  would  have  adopted  the  works 
of  Plato,  Cicero,  and  Virgil  into  the  canon,  instead  of  the  Apo- 
crypha. These  had  as  good  a  title  to  the  honour  of  canonicitv 
as  the  Apocryphal  books,  and  would  have  supplied  irrefragable 
evidence  for  posthumous  expiation  as  well  as  for  many  other 
Romish  superstitoins. 

The  modern  superstition,  therefore,  which  has  been  imposed 
on  the  world  for  Christianity,  is  no  discovery.  Platonism,  on  this 
topic,  anticipated  Popery  at  least  a  thousand  years.  The  Athe- 
nian embodied  the  fabrication  in  his  philosophical  speculations, 
and  taught  a  system,  which,  on  this  subject,  is  similar  to  Ro- 
manism. The  absurdity  has,  with  some  modifications  adapting 
it  to  another  system,  been  stolen  without  being  acknowledged 
from  heathenism  ;  and  appended,  like  a  useless  and  deforming 
wen,  to  the  fair  form  of  Christianity. 

The  Jews,  like  the  Pagans,  believe  in  purgatory  The  He- 
brews, though  after  the  lapse  of  many  ages,  became  acquainted 
with  the  heathen  philosophy.  Alexander  the  Great  planted  a 
Jewish  colony  in  Egypt ;  and  these,  mingling  with  the  nations, 
began,  in  process  of  time,  to  blend  the  Oriental  and  Grecian 
philosophy  with  the  Divine  simplicity  of  their  own  ancient 
theology.  This  perhaps  was  the  channel  through  which  this 
ancient  people  received  the  Pagan  notion  of  clarification  after 
death.  The  soul,  in  the  modern  Jewish  system,  undergoes  this 
process  of  expiation  for  only  twelve  months  after  its  separation  ' 
from  the  body  :  and  is  allowed,  during  this  time,  to  visit  the 
persons  and  places  on  earth,  to  which  during  life  it  was  attached. 
Spirits,  in  this  intermediate  state,  enjoy,  on  the  Sabbath,  a  tem- 
porary cessation  of  punishment.  The  dead,  in  this  system, 
rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  pain  as  the  living  from  labour. 
The  Jewish,  like  the  popish  purgatorians,  obtained  consolation 
and  pardon  from  the  intercessions  of  their  friends  on  earth.1 

The  Mussulmen  adopted  the  idea  of  purgatorian  punishment, 
in  all  probability,  from  the  popish  and  Jewish  systems.  The 
Arabian  impostor  formed  his  theology  from  Judaism  and  Popery. 
The  unlettered  prophet  of  Mecca,  it  is  commonly  believed,  was 
assisted  by  an  apostatized  Christian  and  a  temporizing  Jew  in 
the  composition  of  the  Koran  and  in  the  fabrication  of  Is- 
lamism.  The  notion  of  posthumous  purification  had,  at  the 
commencement  of  the  Hegira,  obtained  a  reception  into  the 

1  Basn.  IV.  32.     Calm.  Diet.  3.  747.     Morery,  7.  396. 


INTRODUCTION    OF    PURGATORY.  517 

church  and  into  the  synagogue  ;  and,  from  them,  into  Mahom- 
etanism.  Gentilism  also  in  all  probability,  was,  in  this  amal- 
gamation of  heterogeneous  elements,  made  to  contribute  a  part : 
and  all  again  were,  as  might  be  expected,  modified  according 
to  the  dictation  of  prejudice  or  fancy.1 

Such,  on  this  question,  wrere  the  notions  of  Pagans,  Jews,  and 
Mussulmen.  A  similar  appendage  was,  in  the  progress  of  su- 
perstition, obtruded  on  Christianity.  Augustine  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  Christian  author,  who  entertained  the  idea  of  pu- 
rifying the  soul  while  the  body  lay  in  the  tomb.  The  African 
saint,  though,  in  some  instances,  he  evinced  judgment  and  piety, 
displayed,  on  many  occasions,  unqualified  and  glaring  inconsis- 
tency. His  works,  which  are  voluminous,  present  an  odd 
medley  of  sense,  devotion,  folly,  recantations,  contradictions, 
and  balderdash. 

His  opinions  on  purgatorian  punishment  exhibit  many  in- 
stances of  fickleness  and  incongruity.  He  declares,  in  many 
places,  against  any  intermediate  state  after  death  between  heaven 
and  hell.  He  rejects,  in  emphatical  language,  '  the  idea  of  a 
third  place,  as  unknown  to  Christians  and  foreign  to  revelation.' 
He  acknowledges  only  two  habitations,  the  one  of  eternal 
glory  and  the  other  of  endless  misery.  Man,  he  avers,  '  will 
appear  in  the  last  day  of  the  world  as  he  was  in  the  last  day  of 
his  life,  and  will  be  judged  in  the  same  state  in  which  he  had 
died.'2 

But  the  saint,  notwithstanding  this  unequivocal  language,  is, 
at  other  times,  full  of  doubt  and  difficulty.  The  subject,  he 
grants,  and  with  truth,  is  one  that  he  could  never  clearly  under- 
stand. He  admits  the  salvation  of  some  by  the  fire  mentioned 
by  the  Apostle.  This,  however,  he  sometimes  interprets  to 
signify  temporal  tribulation  before  death,  and  sometimes  the 
general  conflagration  after  the  resurrection.  He  generally  ex- 
tends this  ordeal  to  all  men  without  any  exception :  and  he 
conjectures,  in  a  few  instances,  that  this  fire  may,  as  a  tempo- 
rary purification,  be  applied  to  some  in  the  interval  between 
death  and  the  general  judgment.  This  interpretation,  however, 
he  offers  as  a  mere  hypothetical  speculation.  He  cannot  tell 
whether  the  temporary  punishment  is  here  or  will  be  hereafter ; 
or  whether  it  is  here  that  it  may  not  be  hereafter.'  The  idea, 
he  grants,  is  a  supposition  without  any  proof,  and  'unsupported 
by  any  canonical  authority.'  He  would  riot,  however,  *  contra- 
dict the  presumption,  because  it  might  perhaps  be  the  truth.'3 

1  Sale,  76.     Calmet,  3.  748.     Morery,  397. 

2  I  i  quo  enim  quemque  invenerit  suns  novissimus  dies,  in  hoc  eum  comprehen- 
det  mnndi  novissimus  dies  ;  quoniam  qualis  in  die  isto  quisque  moritur,  talis  in  die 
illo  judicabitur.     Augustin,  ad  Hesych.  2.  743.  et  Hypog.  V.  5.  P.  40. 

3  Eatadem  tribulationem  ignem  vocat.     Aug.  C.  D.  XXI.  26.     Ambos  probat. 


618  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

Augustine's  doubts  show,  to  a  demonstration,  the  novelty  of 
the  purgatorian  chimera.  His  conjectural  statements  and  his 
difficulty  of  decision  afford  decisive  proof,  that  this  dogma,  in 
his  day,  was  no  article  of  faith.  The  saint  would  never  have 
made  an  acknowledged  doctrine  of  the  church  a  subject  of 
hesitation  and  inquiry.  He  would  not  have  represented  a 
received  opinion  as  destitute  of  canonical  authority :  much  less 
would  he  have  acknowledged  a  heaven  and  a  hell,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  in  direct  unambiguous  language,  disavowed  a  third 
or  middle  place.  Purgatory,  therefore,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century,  was  no  tenet  of  theology.  Augustine  seems  to 
have  been  the  connecting  link  between  the  exclusion  and  re- 
ception of  this  theory.  The  fiction,  after  his  day,  was  owing 
to  circumstances,  slowly  and  after  several  ages  admitted  into 
Romanism. 

Augustine's  literary  and  theological  celebrity  tended  to  the 
propagation  of  this  superstition.  The  Saint's  reputation  was 
high,  and  his  works  were  widely  circulated.  His  piety  indeed 
was  deservedly  respected  through  Christendom.  His  influence 
swayed  the  African  church.  The  African  councils,  in  their 
opposition  to  Pelagianism,  were,  in  a  particular  manner,  con- 
trolled by  his  authority.  His  fame  extended  to  the  European 
nations,  and  the  Bishop  of  Hippo,  from  his  character  for  sanc- 
tity and  ability,  possessed,  through  a  great  part  of  his  life,  more 
real  power  than  the  Roman  pontiff.  A  hint  from  a  man  of  his 
acknowledged  superiority  would  circulate  with  rapidity,  and 
be  accompanied  with  a  powerful  recommendation  through  the 
Christian  commonwealth. 

This  superstition,  like  many  others  that  grew  up  in  the  dark 
ages,  was  promoted  by  the  barbarism  of  the  times.  Italy, 
France,  Spain,  and  England  were  overrun  with  hordes  of 
savages.  The  Goths  and  Lombards  invaded  Italy.  Franco 
was  subdued  by  the  Franks;  while  the  Vandals  desolated 
Spain.  The  martial  but  unlettered  Saxons  from  the  forests  of 
Germany  wasted  the  fairest  provinces  of  Britain.  The  rude 
invaders  destroyed  nearly  every  vestige  of  learning,  and,  in  its 
stead,  introduced  their  own  native  ignorance  and  uncivilization. 
Cimmerian  darkness,  in  consequence,  seemed  to  overspread 
the  world.  Art,  science,  philosophy,  and  literature  appeared, 
in  terror  or  disgust,  to  have  fled  from  barbarized  man,  and 
from  the  general  wreck  of  all  the  monuments  of  taste  and 
Christianity.  The  clouds  of  ignorance  extended  to  the  Asians 

Aug.  7.  648.  Ambo  per  cum  transeant.  Iste  ignis  in  hac  interim  vita  facit  quod 
Apostolus  dixit.  Aug.  6.  127,  128.  Sive  ibi  tantum,  sive  et  hie  et  ibi,  sive  ideo 
hie  ut  non  ibi  non  redargue,  quia  forsitan  verum  est.  Aug.  C.  D.  XXI.  26,  I*.  C49. 
In  eis  nulla  velut  canonica  constituitur  authoritas.  Aug.  Dul.  6.  131.  132. 


SLOW  PROGRESS  OF  PURGATORY.  519 

and  Africans  as  well  as  to  the  Europeans,  prepared  the  world 
for  the  reception  of  any  absurdity,  and  facilitated  the  progress 
of  superstition. 

The  innovation,  however,  notwithstanding  the  authority  of 
Augustine  and  the  Vandalism  of  the  age,  made  slow  progress. 
A  loose  and  indetermined  idea  of  temporary  punishment  and 
atonement  after  death,  but  void  of  system  or  consistency,  began 
to  float,  at  random,  through  the  minds  of  men.  The  supersti- 
tion, congenial  with  the  human  soul,  especially  when  destitute 
of  religious  and  literary  attainments,  continued,  in  gradual  and 
tardy  advances,  to  receive  new  accessions.  The  notion,  in  this 
crude  and  indigested  state,  and  augmenting  by  continual  accu- 
mulations, proceeded  to  the  popedom  of  Gregory  in  the  end  of 
the  sixth  century. 

Gregory,  like  Augustine,  spoke  on  this  theme  with  striking 
indecision.  The  Roman  pontiff  and  the  African  saint,  discours- 
ing on  venial  frailty  and  posthumous  atonement,  wrote  with 
hesitation  and  inconsistency.  His  infallibility,  in  his  annota- 
tions on  Job,  disclaims  an  intermediate  state  of  propitiation. 
*  Mercy,  if  once  a  fault  consign  to  punishment,  will  not,  says 
the  pontiff,  afterward  return  to  pardon.  A  holy  or  a  malignant 
spirit  seizes  the  soul,  departing  at  death  from  the  body,  and 
detains  it  for  ever  without  any  change.'1  This,  at  the  present 
day,  would  hardly  pass  for  popish  orthodoxy.  This,  in  modern 
times,  would,  at  the  Vatican,  be  accounted  little  better  than 
Protestantism. 

His  infallibility,  however,  dares  nobly  to  vary  from  himself. 
The  annotator  and  the  dialogist  are  not  the  same  person  or,  at 
least,  do  not  teach  the  same  faith.  The  vicar-general  of  God, 
in  his  dialogues,  '  teaches  the  belief  of  a  purgatorian  fire,  prior 
to  the  general  judgment,  for  trivial  offences.'2  This,  it  must 
be  granted,  is  one  bold  stdp  towards  modern  Romanism.  But 
his  holiness  is  still  defective.  He  mentions  trivial  failings  ;  but 
says  nothing  of  the  temporal  punishment  of  mortal  delinquency. 
This,  to  the  sovereign  pontiff  in  the  sixth  century,  was  un- 
known land. 

His  holiness  is  guilty  of  another  variation  from  modern  Ca- 
tholicism. He  had  no  common  receptacle  or  common  means 
of  punishment,  as  at  the  present  day,  for  the  luckless  souls  satis- 
fying for  venial  frailty.  He  consigns  the  unhappy  purgatorians 
to  various  places,  and  refines  them  sometimes  in  fire  and  some- 

1  Si  semel  culpa  ad  poenam  pertrahit,  misericordia  ulterius  ad  veniam  non  redu- 
cer.    Greg,   in  Job  viii.  10.     Human!  casus  tempore,  sive  sanctus  sive  malignus 
spiritus,  egredientem  animam  claustra  carnis  acceperit,  in  seternum  secum,  sine 
ulla  permutatione  retinebit.     Greg,  in  Job  viii.  8. 

2  De  quibusdam  levibus  culpis,  esse,  ante  judicium.  pnrgatorius  ignis  credendua 
•at.     Greg.     Dial.  IV.  39. 


520  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  „ 

times  in  water.  He  accordingly  boiled  the  spirit  of  Pascasius, 
for  this  purpose,  in  the  hot  baths  of  Angelo.  Germanus. 
bishop  of  Capua,  saw  the  Roman  deacon  standing  in  the  scald- 
ing steam,  as  the  punishment  of  supporting  Laurentius  against 
Symmachus  in  a  contested  election  for  the  popedom.1  This 
vapour,  his  infallibility  seems  to  have  thought  the  proper  men- 
struum for  the  solution  of  a  hardened  soul,  and  for  the  precipita- 
tion or  sublimation  of  moral  pollution.  Steam,  which  now  in 
the  improvement  of  science  and  in  the  march  of  mind,  propels, 
by  its  chemical  power,  the  ship,  the  coach,  and  other  kinds  of 
machinery,  was  used  in  the  days  of  old  for  its  moral  effects  in 
cleansing  purgatorian  ghosts  from  venial  stains.  The  ancients, 
it  appears,  had  a  steam  purgatory,  as  the  moderns  have  steam 
engines.  Posterity  therefore  need  not  boast  of  superiority 
over  their  ancestors,  who  ingeniously  applied  this  element  for  a 
nobler  purpose  than  any  discovery  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
Germanus  prayed  for  Pascasius,  who  therefore  escaped  from 
the  purifying  steam.  But  no  mention  is  made  of  any  mass. 
This  sublime  mummery,  which  is  the  invention  of  a  later  age, 
had  not  in  Gregory's  time  come  into  fashion.2 

Damian,  on  the  contrary,  in  the  eleventh  century,  represen- 
ted the  soul  of  Severinus  bishop  of  Cologne,  as  steeped,  for 
some  misdemeanors,  in  a  river,  which,  he  was  satisfied,  would 
yield  the  necessary  abstersion  for  removing  the  stain  of  moral 
defilement.  He  soused  the  departed  spirit  in  water,  as  amoral 
lotion  of  approved  and  unfailing  efficacy.  Caloric,  it  seems,  is 
not  the  only  solvent  for  decomposing  the  defilement  of  sin. 
The  cold  element  as  well  as  the  hot  steam,  in  the  theor}f  of 
Gregory  and  Damian,  the  pontiff'  and  the  saint,  will  effect  this 
purpose. 

Nidhard,  quoted  by  Hottinger,  mentions  another  mode  of  pu- 
rifying souls.  This  consists  in  consigning  them  to  cold  lodgings. 
Some  fishermen,  it  seems,  during  the  time  of  a  violent  heat, 
found  in  the  water  a  mass  of  the  coldest  ice.  This,  the  fisher- 
men having  presented  to  bishop  Theobald,  a  naked,  shivering, 
frozen  ghost,  which  suffered  the  pains  of  purgatory  in  this  con- 
gelation, revealed,  in  loud  outcry  from  its  icy  tenement,  its  dis- 
tress, and  begged  the  aid  of  Theobald's  prayers.3  The  bishop's 
intercessions  soon  thawed  the  congealment,  and  liberated  the 
ice-imprisoned  spirit.  According  to  Gregory,  Damian,  and 
Nidhard,  therefore,  not  only  fire,  but  also  water  in  its  fluid, 
frozen,  and  steamified  state,  will  serve  as  a  wash  in  a  purgatorian 

1  Pascasium  in  caloribus  stantem  invenerit.  Labb.  5.  419.  Greg.  Dial.  IV.  40 
Pascasius  in  Thermis  Angulanis  puniebatur.  Faber,  IV.  p.  448. 

*  Bell.  II.  6.     Godeau,  3.  744. 

3  Episcopus  audiverit  quandam  animam  clamantem  de  ista  glacie.  Nidhard,  91. 
Hotting.  6.  1366. 


SLOW    PROGRESS    OF    PURGATORY.  521 

process  for  purging  venial  transgressors.  These  authors  there- 
fore had  discovered  or  invented  no  common  depot  or  medium 
of  execution  for  the  unfortunate  ghosts  doomed  to  satisfy  for 
trivial  misdemeanors. 

Platina,  in  his  life  of  Benedict,  presents  a  view  of  purgatory 
in  the  eleventh  century.  His  posthumous  infallibility  pope 
Benedict  appeared  to  a  traveller,  decorated  with  the  beautiful 
ears  and  tail  of  an  ass,  and  dignified  with  the  graceful  counte- 
nance and  limbs  of  a  bear.  The  traveller,  whoever  he  was, 
took  the  liberty  of  asking  the  cause  of  the  unholy  transforma- 
tion. My  deformity  after  death,  replied  his  holiness,  is  the 
reward  of  my  pollution  in  life.  The  pontiff,  according  to  the 
historian,  was  doomed  to  be  dragged  till  the  day  of  judgment 
through  thorns  and  filth,  in  regions  exhaling  stench,  and  sulphur 
and  fire. 

Gregory  has,  by  several  authors,  been  represented  as  the  dis- 
coverer or  rather  the  creator  of  purgatory.  Otho,  a  learned 
historian  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  a  man  of  extensive  informa- 
tion, accounted  this  pontiff's  fabulous  dialogues  the  foundation 
of  the  purgatorian  fiction.  Bruys,  in  modern  times,  agreeing 
with  Otho,  represents  Gregory  as  the  person  who  discovered  this 
middle  state  for  venial  sinners.  His  infallibility  certainly- 
sanctioned  the  fabrication,  with  his  pontifical  authority  :  and  his 
name  gave  it  circulation.  He  enriched  the  meagre  figure  with 
several  additions,  and  has  the  credit  of  becoming  the  early  patron 
and  improver  of  the  innovation.  He  did  not  indeed  perfect  the 
system.  This  honour  was  reserved  for  the  schoolmen,  who,  in 
many  instances,  completed  the  inventions  of  their  predecessors. 
But  the  unfinished  portrait  received  several  new  touches  from  his 
pencil,  which  was  always  the  willing  instrument  of  superstition.1 

The  pontiff  himself  seems  to  confess  the  novelty  of  the  system. 
Many  things,  says  his  infallibility,  have  in  these  last  times  be- 
come clear,  which  were  formerly  concealed.2  This  declaration 
is  in  the  dialogue  that  announces  the  existence  of  purgatory  ; 
which,  he  reckons,  was  one  of  the  bright  discoveries  that  dis- 
tinguished his  age.  This  consideration  perhaps  will  account  for 
the  pontiff's  inconsistency.  The  hierarch,  as  already  shown, 
both  opposed  and  advocated  the  purgatorian  theology.  His 
opposition  perhaps  preceded  the  happy  moment,  in  which  the 
flood  of  light  burst  on  his  mind,  and  poured  the  knowledge  of 
the  new-born  faith  with  overwhelming  illumination  on  his 
astonished  soul. 

1  Gregoire  en  fit  la  decouverte  dans  ses  beaux  dialogues.  Bruys,  1.  378.  Otho. 
Ann.  1146.  A 

3  In  his  extremis  temporibus,  tain  multa  animabus  clarescunt,  quae  ante  latue« 
runt.  Gregory,  Dial.  IV.  40 


622  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

The  innovation  mentioned  in  this  manner  with  doubt  by 
Augustine,  and  recommended  with  inconsistency  by  Gregory, 
men  of  high  authority  in  their  day,  continued  to  spread  and 
claim  the  attention  and  belief  of  men.  The  names  of  the  Afri- 
can and  Roman  saints  were  calculated  to  influence  the  faith  of 
the  Latins,  among  whom  the  invention  advanced,  though  with 
tardy  steps,  to  perfection.  Its  bulk,  like  that  of  the  Alpine  ava- 
lanche, increased  in  its  progress.  This  terror  of  the  Alps,  as  it 
proceeds  on  its  headlong  course,  acquires  new  accessions  of 
snowy  materials ;  and  the  opinion,  patronized  by  a  saint  and  a 
pontiff,  received,  in  like  manner,  continual  accretions  from  con- 
genial minds.  The  shallow  river,  advancing  to  the  main  swells 
by  the  influx  of  tributary  waves,  and  the  recent  theory,  in  a 
similar  way,  as  it  flowed  down  the  stream  of  time,  augmented 
its  dimensions  from  the  unfailing  treasury  of  superstition. 

The  progress  of  the  fabrication ,  however,  was  slow.  Its  move- 
ments to  perfection  were  as  tardy,  as  its  introduction  into  Chris- 
tendom had  been  late.  This  opinion,  says  Courayer,  '  did  not 
begin  to  assume  a  form  till  the  fifth  century.'  Fisher  admits 
that  '  all  the  Latins  did  not  apprehend  its  truth  at  the  same  time, 
but  by  gradual  advances.  The  universal  church,  he  admits, 
knew  and  received  purgatory  at  a  late  period.'1  Its  belief  ob- 
tained no  general  establishment  in  the  Christian  commonwealth 
for  ages  after  Gregory's  death.  The  council  of  Aix  la  Chapelle, 
in  836,  decided  in  direct  opposition  to  posthumous  satisfaction 
or  pardon.  This  synod  mentions  '  three  ways  of  punishment 
for  men's  sins.'  Of  these,  two  are  in  this  life  and  one  after 
death.  Sins,  said  this  assembly,  '  are,  in  this  world,  punished 
by  the  repentance  or  compunction  of  the  transgressor,  and  by 
the  correction  or  chastisement  of  God.  The  third,  after  death, 
is  tremendous  and  awful,  when  the  judge  shall  say,  depart  from 
me,  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and 
his  angels.'2  The  fathers  of  this  council  knew  nothing  of  pur- 
gatory, and  left  no  room  for  its  expiation. 

The  innovation,  in  998,  obtained  an  establishment  at  Cluny. 
Odilo,  whom  Fulbert  calls  an  archangel,  and  Baronius  the 
brightest  star  of  the  age,  opened  an  extensive  mart  of  prayers 
and  masses  for  the  use  of  souls  detained  in  the  purgatorian 
retort.  Fulbert's  archangel  seems,  in  this  department,  to  have 

1  Ce  n'est  proprement  que  dans  le  cinquieme  siecle,  que  cette  opinion  a  com- 
menc6e  &  prendre  une  forme.  Couray.  in  Paol.  2.  644.  Neque  Latini  simul 
omnes  Bed  sensim  hujus  rei  veritatem  concerperunt.  Purgatorium  tarn  sero  cogni- 
tum  ac  receptum  universse  ecclesiee  fuerit.  Fish.  Con.  Luth.  Art.  18.  Geddis,  110. 

3  Tribus  modis  peccata  mortalium  vindicantur;  duobus  in  hac  vita  :  tertio  vero 
iu  futura  vita.  Tertia  autem  extat  valde  pertimescenda  et  terribilis,  qua;  non  in 
hoc  sed  in  futu.ro  justissimo  Dei  judicio  fiet  saeculo,  quando  Justus  judex  dictunu 
est,  discredite  a  me,  malediciti,  in  ignem  aeternum.  Labb.  9.  844.  Crabb.  2.  711. 


PURGATORY  COMPLETED  BY  THE  SCHOOLMEN.     523 

excelled  all  his  predecessors.  A  few,  in  several  places,  had  bo- 
gun  to  retail  intercessions  for  the  purgatorians.  But  Odilo 
commenced  business  as  a  wholesale  merchant.1  The  traffic, 
no  doubt,  was  as  beneficial  as  it  was  benevolent,  and  gratified 
at  once  the  selfish  and  social  passions. 

Odilo' s  exertions,  in  his  spiritual  emporium,  gained  the  grati- 
tude, if  not  the  money  of  Benedict  the  Eighth.  His  infalli- 
bility, notwithstanding  his  holiness  and  supremacy  in  life,  had, 
after  death,  the  mischance  of  falling  into  the  place  of  posthu- 
mous punishment.  His  holiness,  however,  through  the  media- 
tion and  masses  of  the  Abbot,  escaped  from  the  smoke  and  fire 
of  purgatory.2  All  this  must  have  been  very  satisfactory  to 
Benedict,  and  also,  as  he  died  rich,  to  Odilo. 

The  purgatorian  novelty,  however,  though  admitted  by  many, 
had  not  obtained  a  general  reception  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth 
century.  This  is  clear  from  Otho  the  historian,  who  was  a 
man  of  profound  erudition  and  research.  This  author  repre- 
sents '  some  as  believing  in  a  purgatorian  place  situated  in  the 
infernal  regions,  were  souls  are  consigned  to  darkness  or  roasted 
with  the  fire  of  expiation.73  This  testimony  is  very  explicit. 
The  opinion  was  not  entertained  by  all,  but  asserted  by  some. 
The  historian,  who  possessed  enlarged  information,  would 
never  have  used  such  language,  had  purgatory,  in  his  day,  been 
the  common  belief  of  the  ecclesiastical  community.  The  peo- 
ple were  divided.  Some  maintained,  and  some  rejected  the 
dogma  of  a  temporary  expiation  after  death.  Those  who 
believed  in  the  posthumous  satisfaction  could  not  agree  whether 
the  medium  of  torment  was  darkness  or  fire.  The  innovation, 
it  is  plain,  had  not,  'in  Otho's  day,  become  the  general  faith  of 
Christendom.  Bernard,  who  flourished  in  the  same  age  as 
Otho,  could  not,  with  all  his  saintship,  determine  whether  the 
posthumous  punishment  *  was  by  heat,  cold,  or  some  other 
infliction.'4 

The  speculation  of  Augustine,  Gregory,  and  Odilo  fell,  after 
Otho's  time,  into  the  hands  of  Aquinas  and  other  schoolmen. 
The  angelic  doctor  and  the  rest  of  the  confraternity  finished 
the  fabric,  which  others  had  founded.  These,  on  this  subject 
as  on  others,  gave  the  finishing  touch  to  the  outline  of  former 

1  Odilonem  hoc  anno  commemorationem  omnium  deftinctorum  instituisse :  cujus 
exemplo  ad  caeteras  ecclesias  hsec  institutio  promanavit.  Mabillon,  4.  125.  Spoc 
1048.  II,  III.  Bruys,  2.  240. 

3  Vir  Dei  prsecepit,  ut  pro  defuncto  pontifice,  preces  fierent.  Mabillon,  4.  312, 
313. 

3  Esse  apud  Inferos  locum  purgatorium,  in  quo  salvandi  vel   tenebraa   tantum 
afficiantur,  vel   expiationis  igne   detorquentur,    quidam   asserunt.     Otho,  Chron. 
viii.  26. 

4  Qui  in  purgatorio  sunt,  expectant  redemptionem  prius  cruciandi  aut  calore  ig- 
nis, aut  rigore  frigoris,  aut  alicujus  gravitate  doloria-     Bernard,  1719. 


624  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

days,  and  furnished  the  skeleton  with  sinews,  muscles,  form, 
and  colour.  Their  distinctions  on  this  topic  exhibit  a  display 
of  supererogation  in  subtilty,  metaphysics,  and  refinement. 
Their  attention  fixed  the  place  and  the  punishment  of  the  pur- 
gatorian  mansions.1 

The  plan,  finished  in  this  manner  by  the  schoolmen,  came 
before  the  general  council  of  Florence  in  its  twenty-fifth  session 
in  1438,  and  received  its  sanction.  This  decision  was  ratified 
by  pope  Eugenius  :  and  the  opinion,  after  a  long  succession  of 
variations,  became  at  length  a  dogma  of  faith  in  the  Latin 
communion.2 

The  Greeks,  however,  opposed  the  Latins  on  this  question  in 
the  Florentine  council,  and  the  discordancy  occasioned  long 
and  nonsensical  discussions.  The  Greeks,  with  impregnable 
obstinacy,  disclaimed  the  idea  of  fiery  pain  or  expiation. 
Each,  however,  actuated  with  the  desire  of  accommodation, 
yielded  a  little  to  the  other.  The  Latins  waved  the  idea  of 
purgatorian  fire :  and  the  Greeks,  in  their  turn,  politely  ad- 
mitted a  posthumous  atonement  by  darkness,  labour,  sorrow, 
and  the  deprivation  of  the  vision  of  God.  A  temporary  union 
therefore  was  formed  without  sincerity,  but  soon  afterward  viola- 
ted. The  Grecian  disbelief  of  purgatory  has  been  granted  by 
Guido,  Alphonsus,  Fisher,  More,  Prateolus,  Renaudot,  and 
Simon.  Bellarmine  himself  here  suspected  the  Greeks  of 
heresy;  and  supported  his  surmises  with  the  authority  of 
Thomas  Aquinas  the  angelic  doctor.  The  disbelief  of  this 
theology  was  also  entertained  by  the  other  oriental  denomina- 
tions, such  as  the  Abyssinians,  Georgians,  Armenians,  and 
Syrians.3 

The  city  of  Trent  witnessed  the  last  synodal  discussion  on 
this  topic  in  a  general  council.  The  decision,  on  that  occasion, 
presented  an  extraordinary  demonstration  of  unity.  The  pre- 
paration of  a  formulary  was  committed,  says  Paolo,  to  the 
cardinal  of  Warmia  and  eight  bishops,  or,  according  to  Pala- 
vicino,  to  five  bishops  and  five  divines.  These,  knowing  the 
delicacy  of  the  task,  endeavoured  to  avoid  every  difficulty,  yet 
could  not  agree.  Terms,  says  Paolo  and  Du  Pin,  could  not 
be  found  to  express  each  person's  mind.4  Language,  incapa- 
ble of  representing  their  diversity  of  opinion,  sunk  under  the 

i  Aquin.  III.  69,  70.  P.  544,  547,  565. 

»  Labb.  18.  526.     Bin.  8.  568.     Crabb,  3.  476. 

3  Bin.  8.  561.     Crabb.  3.  376.     Coss.  6.  20.     Bell.  1.  2.     Alphon.   VIII.     Fish 
A.  18.     More,  63.     Prateol.  VII.     Renaud.  2.  105.     Simon,  c.  1.     Bell.  1.  1370, 

4  N'etant  pas  possible  de  trouver  des  termes  propres  a  exprimer  les  chose  s  au 
gre  de  chacun,  il  valoit  mieux  n'en  dire  autre  chose  sinon  que  bonnes  oeuvres  des 
fideles  servent  aux  morts  pour  la  remission  de  leurs  peines.     Paol.  2.  633,  634. 
Pallav.  XIV.  2.     Du  Pin,  3.  633      Labb.  20   170. 


PURGATORY    COMPLETED    BY    THE    SCHOOLMEN.  525 

mighty  task  of  enumerating  the  minute  and  numberless  varia- 
tions, entertained  by  a  communion  which  boasts  of  perfect  and 
exclusive  agreement  and  immutability.  This,  in  variety,  out- 
rivalled  the  patrons  of  Protestantism.  These,  in  the  utterance 
of  heresy,  have  sometimes  evinced  ample  want  of  accordancy ; 
but  never,  like  the  Trentine  fathers,  exhausted  language  in 
stating  their  jarring  notions.  The  theological  vocabulary  was 
always  found  sufficient  to  do  justice  to  heretical  variety.  But 
the  universal,  infallible,  holy,  Roman  council,  through  want  of 
words  or  harmony,  was  forced  to  admit,  in  general  terms,  the 
existence  of  a  middle  place,  disengaged  of  all  particular  cir- 
cumstantial explanation.  This,  the  council  pledged  their  word, 
is  taught  by  revelation  and  tradition,  as  well  as  by  the  mighty 
assembly  of  Trent.  The  holy  unerring  fathers,  however, 
though  they  could  not  agree  themselves  nor  find  expression  for 
their  clashing  speculations,  did  not  forget  to  curse,  with  cordi- 
ality and  devotion,  all  who  dissented  from  their  sovereign 
decision.  The  cursing  system,  indeed,  was  the  only  thing  on 
which  the  sacred  synod  showed  any  unanimity. 


CHAPTER  XVIIL 


CELIBACY    OF    THE    CLERGY. 

VARIETY    OF   SYSTEMS — JEWISH    THEOCRACY — CHRISTIAN    ESTABLISHMENT — ANCIKWT 

TRADITION INTRODUCTION    OF  CLERICAL    CELIBACY REASONS GREEKS— LATINS 

EFFECTS    OF    SACERDOTAL    CELIBACY DOMESTICISM,    CONCUBINAGE,  AND    MATRI- 
MONY  SECOND    PERIOD    OF  CELIBACY OPPOSITION    TO    GREGORY TOLERATION    OF 

FORNICATION  —  PREFERENCE     OF    FORNICATION    TO     MATRIMONY    AMONG    THE    CLER 

GY — PERMISSION     OF    ADULTERY     OR     BIGAMY    TO    THE    LAITY VIEW    OF    PRIESTLY 

PROFLIGACY    IN    ENGLAND,    SPAIN,    GERMANY,    SWITZERLAND,    FRANCE,    ITALY,  AND 
FERU COUNCILS   OF    LYONS,    CONSTANCE,    AND    BASIL. 

THE  celibacy  of  the  clergy  has,  for  a  long  series  of  time,  been 
established  in  the  Romish  communion.  The  bishop,  the  priest, 
and  the  deacon  are,  in  the  popish  theology,  forbid  «to  marry. 
This  connexion  indeed  is  allowed  to  the  laity.  The  institution, 
in  the  system  of  Catholicism,  is  accounted  a  sacrament,  and 
therefore  the  sign  and  means  of  grace  and  holiness.  The  council 
of  Trent,  in  its  twenty-fourth  session,  declares  this  ceremony 
one  of  the  sacraments,  by  which,  according  to  its  seventh  ses- 
sion, *  all  real  righteousness  is  begun  and  augmented.'  The 
same  is  taught  in  the  Trent  Catechism,  published  by  the  com- 
mand of  Pope  Pius.1  But,  wonderful  to  tell,  the  council  as  well 
as  the  Catechism  prescribes,  in  sheer  inconsistency,  a  renuncia- 
tion of  an  institution  which  conveys  true  sanctity,  as  a  necessary 
qualification  for  the  priesthood. 

The  advocates  of  Romanism,  however,  vary  on  the  decision 
of  the  question,  whether  this  celibacy  be  divine,  or  human,  or 
even  useful.  One  party  in  the  popish  community  account  the 
interdiction  a  divine  appointment.  These  make  the  prohibition 
a  matter  of  faith  and  moral  obligation,  which,  unlike  a  question 
of  mere  discipline,  neither  the  pope  nor  the  universal  church 
can  change  or  modify.  Commanded  by  God,  and  sanctioned 
by  his  Almighty  fiat,  no  earthly  power  can  repeal  the  enactment, 
which,  according  to  this  system,  must  remain  for  ever  without 
alteration.  This  opinion  was  patronized  by  Jerome,  Epipha- 

1  Per  sacramenta,  omnis  vera  justitia  vel  incipit,  vel  coepta  augetur,  vel  ornissa 
reparatur.  Bin.  9.  367,  411.  Labb.  20.  150.  Gratiam  quoque  hoc  sacramento 
Bignificare  et  tribui.  Cat.  Trid.  187.  Aquin.  3.  486.  Gibert,  3.  315. 


VARIETY    OF    SYSTEMS.  527 

nius,  Major,  Clichtovius,  Gabutius,  Siricius,  and  Innocent.1 
This  party,  however,  was  never  considerable  either  in  number 
or  influence. 

A  second  party  reckons  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  a  human 
constitution.  These,  in  general,  esteem  the  prohibition  a  ques- 
tion not  of  faith  but  of  discipline,  prescribed  not  by  God  but 
by  man,  and  capable  of  being  altered  or  even  repealed  by 
human  authority.  These  are  numerous,  and  include  the  ma- 
jority of  the  popish  communion :  and  the  opinion  has  been 
patronized  by  many  theologians  of  influence  and  learning,  such 
as  Aquinas,  Cajetan,  Soto,  Bellarmine,  Valentia,  Bossuet,  Du 
Pin,  Gother,  Challenor,  and  Milner. 

The  partizans  of  this  opinion,  however,  are  subdivided  into 
two  factions,  distinguished  by  a  slight  shade  of  difference.  One 
of  these  factions  accounts  the  matrimonial  interdiction,  apos- 
tolical, established  by  the  inspired  heralds  of  the  gospel ;  and 
continued  in  uninterrupted  succession  till  the  present  day.  This 
forms  a  close  approximation  to  the  former  system  ;  and  seems 
to  have  been  advocated,  with  some  variation  and  inconsistency, 
by  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Siricius,  Innocent,  Gregory,  Bellar- 
mine, Godeau,  and  Thomassin.2  The  other  fection  reckons 
the  regulation  merely  ecclesiastical  or  human,  and  a  matter  of 
mere  expediency,  and  capable  of  dispensation  or  recission 
according  to  utility.  This  system  has  been  countenanced  by 
Aquinas,  Cajetan,  Antonius,  and  Gratian.  The  marriage  of 
the  clergy,  says  Gratian,  is  forbidden  neither  by  evangelical  or 
apostolical  authority.  Similar  statements  have  been  made  by 
Aquinas  and  Cajetan.3 

A  third  party  account  sacerdotal  celibacy  not  only  ecclesias- 
tical or  human,  but  also  useless  or  hurtful.  The  opposition  to 
the  prohibition,  even  in  t}ie  bosom  of  the  Romish  communion, 
has  in  every  age,  been  persevering  and  powerful.  This  hosti- 
lity will,  in  glowing  colours,  appear  in  the  ensuing  details.  The 
privation  has  been  discountenanced  by  many  of  the  ablest  pat- 
rons of  Romanism,  such  as  Panormitan,  Erasmus,  Durarid, 
Polydorus,  Alvarus,  and  Pius.  The  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  says 
Pius  the  Second,  is  supported  by  strong  reasons,  but  opposed 
by  stronger.  The  edicts  of  Siricius  and  Innocent,  by  which 
the  privation  was  first  enforced,  were  rejected  by  many  of  the 

1  Jerom.  adv.  Jov.  Epiph.  H.  48.  Major,  D.  24.  Clich.  c.  4.    Bell.  I.  18.  Gibert, 
1.  109.     Gabut.  21. 

2  Cette  loi  est  aussi  ancieone,  quel'eglise.     Thomassin,  I.  43.     Anton,  c.  21. 

3  Non  est  essentialiter  annexum  debitum  continentiae  ordini  sacro,  sed  ex  sta- 
tute ecclesiae.     Aquin.  II.  Q.  88.  A.  II.  P.  311.     Potest  Summus  Pontifex  dispen- 
sare  in  matrimonio  cum  sacerdote.     Nee  ratione  nee  autoritate  probatur  quod,  ab- 
solute loquendo,  sacerdos  peceet  contrahendo  matrimonium,  quin  ratio  potius  ot 
ad  oppositum  ducit.     Cajetan,  1.  121.     Bell,  1.  19.     Godea.  2.  154. 


528  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

clergy.  Gregory's  tyranny  on  this  topic  met  with  decided  hos- 
tility. His  attempt  was,  by  many,  accounted  an  innovation  and 
produced  a  schism.  Many  chose  to  renounce  the  priesthood 
rather  than  submit  to  pontifical  despotism,  violate  their  conjugal 
engagements,  or  relinquish  the  objects  of  their  affections.  The 
German  emperor  and  clergy  supplicated  Pope  Pius  the  Fourth, 
for  a  repeal  of  the  enactments  against  sacerdotal  matrimony,  and 
supported  their  petition  with  the  most  irrefragable  arguments, 
such  as  the  novelty  of  privation,  and  its  dreadful  consequences 
on  morality.  Augustine,  the  Bavarian  ambassador  at  Trent, 
petitioned  against  clerical  celibacy,  which,  he  declared,  "  was 
not  of  divine  right  or  commanded  by  God."  His  speech,  on 
the  occasion,  met,  even  in  the  council  of  Trent,  with  attention 
and  even  applause.  The  French  king  and  clergy  at  Poissy 
issued  a  similar  petition  to  the  pope  in  1561,  enforced  by  similai 
reasons.1  Many  of  the  popish  errors  indeed  may,  in  theory,  be 
absurd  as  clerical  celibacy.  But  none,  in  practice,  has  been 
attended  with  such  odious  and  appalling  effects  in  the  demor- 
alization of  man.  The  rankest  and  most  disgusting  debauchery, 
originating  in  the  unnatural  interdiction,  has,  in  the  Romish 
communion,  disgraced  sacerdotal  dignity,  and  stained  the  annals 
of  civil  and  ecclesiastical  history. 

The  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  in  all  its  forms,  is  a  variation 
from  the  Jewish  theocracy  delivered  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Jews  countenanced  neither  celibacy  nor  maidenhood,  and 
the  Jewish  nation  contained  neither  unmatrimonial  priests  nor 
cloistered  nuns.  The  patriarchs,  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
were  married,  and  had  a  numerous  offspring.  Prior  to  Moses, 
the  first-born  of  the  Hebrews  possessed  both  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical authority,  and  was  prince  and  priest;  but  was  not 
debarred  connubial  enjoyments.  Moses,  the  celebrated  legisla- 
tor of  Israel,  was  married  and  had  a  family.  The  holy  prophets 
of  Palestine,  such  as  Noah,  Joseph,  Samuel,  David,  Isaiah,  and 
Ezekiel,  formed  this  connexion,  and  became  the  parents  of  sons 
and  daughters.  The  levitical  priesthood  were  allowed  the 
same  liberty.  Matrimony  indeed,  among  the  Israelitish  clergy, 
could  hardly  be  called  a  bare  permission  ;  but  amounted  in  one 
sense  to  a  command.  The  priesthood,  among  the  descendants 
of  Abraham,  was  hereditary.  The  sons  of  the  Aaronical 
priests  succeeded,  in  consequence  of  their  birth-right,  to  the 
administration  of  the  sacerdotal  functions.2  An  injunction 
therefore  seems,  in  this  manner,  to  have  been  laid  on  the  min- 
ister of  the  Jewish  establishment  in  favour  of  that  institution, 

1  Bruys,  3.  398.     Bell.  1.  1110.     Du  Pin,  3.  336,  522.     Erasm.   1.  422.     Platina 
in  Pius  2.  Paolo,  2.  680. 
*  Grab.  1.  417.    Chrysostom,  1.  268,  568,  et  2.  298.     BeU.  1.  18. 


CELIBACY    A    VARIATION    FROM    TIJK    JKWTSIl    THEOCRACY, 

by  which,  according  to  the  Divine  appointment,  the  priestly 
office  was  transmitted  to  their  posterity  and  successors,  who 
presided  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  the  religion  of  Canaan. 

Sacerdotal  celibacy  is  a  variation  from  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation revealed  in  the  New  Testament.  The  Christian  Reve- 
lation affords  express  precept  and  example  for  the  marriage  of 
the  clergy.  Paul,  addressing  Timothy  and  Titus,  represents 
the  bishop  as  '  the  husband  of  one  wife.'  The  same  is  said  of 
the  deacon.  Matrimony,  therefore,  according  to  the  book  of 
God,  does  not  disqualify  for  the  episcopacy  or  the  deaconship. 
The  inspired  penman  also  characterizes  'forbidding  to  marry' 
as  'a  doctrine  of  devils.'  The  interdiction  of  the  conjugal 
union,  according  to  apostolical  authority,  emanated  not  from 
God  but  from  Satan.  The  prohibition  and  its  practical  conse- 
quences among  the  Romish  clergy  are  worthy  of  their  author. 
All  who  are  acquainted  with  the  annals  of  sacerdotal  celibacy 
reflect  with  disgust  on  an  institution,  which,  in  its  progress,  has 
been  marked  with  scenes  of  filthiness,  that  have  disgraced 
ecclesiastical  history,  the  popish  priesthood,  and  our  common 
species.  'Take  away  honourable  wedlock,'  says  Bernard, 
1  arid  you  will  fill  the  church  with  fornication,  incest,  sodomy 
and  all  pollution.'  Erasmus,  who  was  well  acquainted  with 
its  effects,  compared  it  to  a  pestilence.1  These  authors  have 
drawn  the  evil  with  the  pencil  of  truth,  and  emblazoned  the 
canvass  with  a  picture  taken  from  life. 

The  apostles  have  left  examples  as  well  as  precepts  in  favour 
of  matrimony.  All  the  apostles,  says  Ambrosius,  except  John 
and  Paul,  were  married.  Simon,  whose  pretended  successors 
have  become  the  vicegerents  of  heaven,  was  a  married  man, 
and  the  sacred  historians  mention  his  mother-in-law.  Peter 
and  Philip,  say  Clemens  and  Eusebius,  had  children.  Paul 
was  married,  according  to  Clemens,  Ignatius,  and  Eusebius; 
though  the  contrary  was  alleged  by  Tertullian,  Hilary,  Epiph- 
anius,  Jerome,  Ambrosius,  and  Augustine.2 

The  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  varying  in  this  manner  from  the 
Christian  dispensation,  is  also  a  variation  from  ancient  tradi- 
tion. The  interdiction  of  sacerdotal  matrimony  is  unknown  to 
the  oldest  monuments  of  the  church,  the  mouldering  fragments 
of  Christian  antiquity,  and  the  primeval  records  of  ecclesiastical 

1  Tolle  de  ecclesia  honorabile  connubium  et  thorum  immaculatum,  nonne  repleg 
earn  coucubinariis,  incestuosis.  seminifluis,  mollibus  mascnlorum  concubitoribus, 
et  omul  denique  gonere  immundorum  ?  Bernard,  Serm.  66.  P.  763.  Tim.  III.  2. 
12.  et  IV.  3.  Titus,  I.  6. 

Qiuie  pestis  aut  lues  a  superis  aut  infernis  immitti  possit  nocentior.  Erasm. 
1.  44ii. 

8  Umnes  Apostoli,  excepto  Johanne  et  Paulo,  uxores  habuerunt.  Amb.  in  2 
Coriu.  ii.  Matth.  viii.  14.  Ciena.  535.  Strom.  3.  Euseb.  iii.  30.  31.  Calm  22 
410. 

34 


(530  THE    VARIATIONS    O*    POFERV ! 

history.  No  vestige  of  the  prohibition  is  to  be  found  in  the  long 
lapse  of  three  hundred  years  after  the  era  of  redemption.  Its 
warmest  patrons  can  produce  no  testimony  of  its  existence  for 
three  ages  after  the  epoch  of  the  incarnation;  nor  any  indeed 
possessing  the  least  authority  till  the  days  of  Jerome  and 
Epiphanius  in  the  end  of  the  fourth  century.  The  monk  of 
Palestine  and  the  bishop  of  Salamis  are  the  first  witnesses 
which  could  be  produced  by  all  the  learning  and  research  of 
Bellarmine,  or  Thomassin  ;  and  even  their  attestation  is  con- 
tradictory and  inconsistent  with  cotemporary  history. 

This  lengthened  period  was  enlightened  and  adorned  by  a 
succession  of  Apostolical  and  Christian  authors;  and  all  are 
silent  on  this  theme,  or  bear  testimony  to  the  unconfined  free- 
dom of  matrimony.  The  inspired  writers  were  followed  by 
the  apostolical  men,  Hermas,  Clemens,  Barnabas,  Polycarp, 
and  Ignatius.  These  again  were  succeeded  by  a  long  train  of 
ecclesiastical  authors,  such  as  Justin,  Irenaeus,  Clemens,  Ori- 
gen,  Tertullian,  Minucius,  Athenagoras,  and  Cyprian.  But 
none  of  these  mention,  in  express  or  implied  phraseology,  any 
connubial  restriction  on  the  clergy  :  and  the  omission  is  not 
supplied  by  a  single  pontifical  edict  or  sy.iodal  canon  prior  to 
the  fourth  century. 

Many  documents  of  antiquity,  on  the  contrary,  remain, 
which  testify  their  unrestrained  liberty  to  form  and  enjoy  the 
nuptial  connexion,  and  which  are  conclusive  and  above  all 
suspicion.  A  few  of  these  may  be  subjoined,  taken  from 
Dionysius,  Clemens,  Origen,  arid  the  Apostolic  canons. 

Dionysius,  about  the  year  one  hundred  and  seventy,  affords 
one  decisive  testimony  to  the  marriage  of  the  priesthood  in  his 
day.  The  interesting  relation  is  preserved  by  Eusebius.  Dio- 
nysius, according  to  the  father  of  ecclesiastical  history,  was 
bishop  of  Corinth.  He  was  esteemed  for  his  wisdom  and 
piety;  and  did  not  confine  his  valuable  labours  to  his  own 
diocese,  but  extended  them  to  other  parts  of  Christendom.  He 
wrote  to  the  Lacedemonians,  Athenians,  Nicomedians,  Gortini- 
ans,  Amastrians,  and  Gnossians,  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing 
truth  and  peace.  His  letter  to  the  Gnossians  was  on  the  sub- 
ject of  sacerdotal  celibacy.  Pinytus,  a  Cretan  bishop,  actuated 
by  ignorance  or  presumption,  urged  the  necessity  of  abstinence 
in  all  its  rigour  on  the  clergy  of  his  diocese.  Dionysius,  hav- 
ing heard  of  the  unconstitutional  attempt,  wrote  to  the 
Gnossians  and  admonished  Pinytus  to  regard  the  weakness  of 
man,  and  to  lay  no  such  heavy  burden  on  the  clergy.  Pinytus, 
convinced  of  his  error,  bowed  to  the  wise  and  well-timed 
counsel,  and  replied  to  his  Corinthian  monitor  in  strains  of 
eulogy  <*uid  admiration.  The  relation  is  conclusive  against 


PROOFS    THAT    THE    CLERGY   ANCIENTLY    WERE    MARRIED.    531 

sacerdotal  celibacy  in  the  days  of  the  Cretian  and  Corinthian 
bishops.  Dionysius,  famed  for  superior  information  on  eccle- 
siastical laws,  condemned  the  injurious  and  unwarranted  inno- 
vation. Pinytus  pleaded  no  authority  for  his  opinion,  and 
acquiesced  in  the  other's  decision  without  hesitation.  Had  the 
interdiction  of  priestly  wedlock  been  apostolical  or  even  eccle- 
siastical, and  continued  in  the  church  in  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion from  the  establishment  of  Christianity,  the  one  would  not 
have  advised  its  abolition,  nor  the  other  have  admitted  his 
determination  with  so  much  submission.1 

Clemens,  who  nourished  about  the  year  200,  testifies  to  the 
same  effect.  *  God,'  says  the  catechist  of  Alexandria,  '  allows 
every  man,  whether  priest,  deacon,  or  layman,  to  be  the  hus- 
band of  one  wife,  and  to  use  matrimony  without  reprehension. 
What  can  the  enemy  of  matrimony  say  against  procreation, 
when  it  is  permitted  to  a  bishop,  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house, 
and  who  governs  the  church.'2  This  is  clear  and  satisfactory. 
The  use,  as  well  as  the  contract  of  marriage  was,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  centuiy,  lawful  both  for  the  clergy  and  for  the 
laity.  The  connubial  state  and  its  enjoyments  extended  in  the 
days  of  Clemens  to  the  pastor  as  well  as  to  the  flock.  Clemens 
was  a  man  of  extensive  erudition  both  in  philosophy  and  the- 
ology, and  therefore  could  not,  on  this  topic,  be  mistaken  in  the 
existing  regulations  of  his  day. 

Origen,  who  flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century, 
is  another  witness.  Origen's  testimony  is  quoted  by  Bellar- 
mine  in  favor  of  sacerdotal  celibacy;  but  certainly  with  little 
judgment.  His  argument  recoils  on  its  author.  '  The  duties 
of  matrimony,'  says  Origen  cited  by  Bellarmine,  *  hinder  the 
continual  sacrifice,  which,  it  appears  to  me,  should  be  offered 
only  by  such  as  devote  themselves  to  constant  and  perpetual 
continency.'3  This  evinces  just  the  contrary  of  what  the  car- 
dinal intended.  Some  who  ministered  at  the  altar,  according 
to  Origen's  words,  were  married,  and  he  complained  that  their 
connubial  engagements  prevented  their  due  and  regular  attend- 
ance on  the  sacred  duty.  He  does  not  mention  or  pretend  any 
ecclesiastical  law  or  injunction,  requiring  the  observation  of 
clerical  celibacy.  He  only  speaks  his  own  private  opinion  as 
a  matter  of  expediency.  His  language  bears  testimony  to  the 
fact,  that  married  men,  in  the  third  century,  officiated  at  the 
altar,  and  to  the  non-existence  of  any  ecclesiastical  canon  or 

1  Euseb.  IV.  23.     Niceph.  IV.  8.     Mendoza,  II.  60. 

*  Toy  rjfs  jiiaj  yvvaixos  cw/Spa  rtaw  artofo^sfac,  xav  npa<Jj3t>f«po$,  97  xaw  Ataxovof, 
*cw  Xaweoj,  ai>e ttt,\r]rtt co$  ya^w  ^pw^fj/oj.  Clem.  Alexan.  1.  552.  Tim.  III.  4. 

3  Impeditur  sacrificium  indesiaens  iis  qui  conjugalibus  necessitatibus  serviunt. 
Unde  videtur  mihi,  quod  illius  solius  est  off'ere  sacrificium  qui  indesinenti  et  perpo- 
tuae  se  devoverit  castitati.  Origen.  Horn.  23.  Bell.  I.  1114. 

34* 


632  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

usage  enforcing  clerical  abstinence.  He  pleads  only  his  private 
judgment  in  behalf  of  his  opinion.  His  prepossessions  against 
all  nuptial  engagements  are  well  known,  and  prompted  him  to 
use  a  remedy  in  his  own  person,  contrary  to  all  law  human 
and  divine.  He  armed  himself  against  temptation,  by  a 
mutilation  which  was  interdicted  by  the  twenty-second  apos- 
tolical and  first  Nicene  canons :  and  one  would  expect  by  self- 
preservation.  This  shows  the  insignificance  of  his  opinion  on 
this  as  on  other  topics  of  faith  and  discipline.  Bellarmine  must 
have  been  possessed  by  the  demon  of  infatuation,  when  he 
appealed  to  Origen's  judgment. 

The  fifth  apostolical  canon  is  to  the  same  purpose.  This 
enactment  '  pronounces  excommunication  and,  in  case  of  con- 
tumacy, deposition  against  the  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  who, 
under  pretext  of  religion,  puts  away  his  wife.'1  The  canon, 
notwithstanding  the  scribbling  of  Binius,  plainly  supposes  cler- 
ical matrimony  and  forbids  separation.  These  canons  indeed 
were  compiled  neither  by  an  apostolic  pen  nor  in  an  apostolic 
age.  Turriano,  it  is  true,  ascribed  them  to  the  apostles 
Baronius  and  Bellarmine  retained  fifty  of  them  and  rejected 
thirty-five.  The  ablest  critics,  however,  such  as  Du  Pin, 
Beveridge,  Albaspinreus  and  Giannon,  have  regarded  them  as 
a  collection  of  canons,  selected  from  Synods  prior  to  the  council 
of  Nice  in  325.  This  seems  to  be  the  true  statement.  The 
canons  are  often  cited  b}r  the  councils  and  authors  of  the  fourth 
century.  John  of  Antioch  inserted  them  in  his  collection  in  the 
reign  of  Justinian,  and  the  emperor  himself  eulogized  them  in 
his  sixth  Novel ;  whilst  their  authority,  at  a  later  date,  was 
acknowledged  by  Damascen,  Photius,  and  the  Seventh  General 
Council.2 

The  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  however,  in  consequence  of  the 
march  of  superstition,  obtained  at  length  in  the  West,  though 
always  rejected  in  Eastern  Christendom.  The  mind  of  super- 
stition seems  inclined  to  ascribe  superior  holiness  to  virginity 
and  celibacy,  and  to  venerate  abstinence  of  this  kind  with  blind 
devotion.  Men,  therefore,  in  all  ages,  have  endeavored  to  draw 
attention  by  pretensions  to  this  species  of  self-denial  and  its 
fancied  purity,'  and  abstraction  from  sublunary  care  and  enjoy- 
ment. Its  votaries,  in  every  age,  have,  by  an  affected  singu- 
larity and  ascetic  contempt  of  pleasure,  contrived  to  attract  the 
eye  of  superstition,  deceive  themselves,  or  amuse  a  silly  world. 
This  veneration  for  celibacy  has  appeared  through  the  nations, 
and  in  the  systems  of  Paganism,  Heresy,  and  Romanism. 

1  Episcopus,  vel  presbiter,  vel  Diaconus  uxorem  suam  ne  ejiciat  religionis  pratextu, 
*1n  autem  ejicerit  segregetur,  et  si  perseveret  deponatur.  Labb.  1.  20.  Hin.  1.  6. 
Cm'.*.  1.  15. 

*  Du  Pin,  c.  10.    Giannon,  II.  8.    Cotel.  1.  429, 442. 


CELIBACY    OP    THE    CLERGY    REJECTED    IN    THE    EAST.       533 

Clerical  celibacy  is  the  child,  not  of  religion  or  Christianity,  but 
of  superstition  and  policy. 

Austerity  of  life  and  abstinence  from  lawful  as  well  as  unlaw- 
ful gratifications,  the  heathen  accounted  the  summit  of  perfec- 
tion. The  Romans,  during  their  profession  of  Gentilism,  though 
their  Pontifex  Maxirnus  was  a  married  man,  had  their  vestal 
virgins,  who  possessed  extraordinary  influence  and  immunity. 
The  Athenian  Hierophants,  according  to  Jerome's  expression, 
unmanned  themselves  by  drinking  cold  hemlock.  Becoming 

J  O  O 

priests,  they  ceased  to  be  men.  The  Egyptian  priesthood 
observed  similar  continency.  These,  says  Cheremon  the  Stoic, 
quoted  by  Jerome,  were  induced,  for  the  purpose  of  subduing 
the  body,  to  forego  the  use  of  flesh,  wine,  and  every  luxury  of 
eating  and  drinking,  which  might  pamper  passion  or  awaken 
concupiscence.  The  priests  of  Cybele,  in  like  manner,  in 
entering  on  their  office,  vanquished  the  enemy  by  mutilation. 

The  Gnostic  and  Manichean  systems  also  declared  against 
matrimony  and  in  favour  of  celibacy.  The  Manicheans,  indeed, 
according  to  Augustine,  allowed  their  auditors,  who  occupied 
the  second  rank,  to  marry,  but  refused  the  same  liberty  to  the 
Elect,  who  aimed  at  the  primary  honours  of  purity.  The  gro- 
velling many,  who  were  contented  with  mediocrity,  indulged 
in  nuptial  enjoyments,  whilst  the  chosen  few,  who  aspired  at 
perfection,  renounced  these  degrading  gratifications,  and  rose 
to  the  sublimity  of  self-denial  and  spirituality.1 

Popery  followed  the  footsteps  of  heathenism  and  heresy. 
The  imperfect  laity,  like  the  Manichean  auditors,  may  attach 
themselves  to  the  other  sex,  and  enjoy  connubial  gratifications. 
But  the  clergy  and  sisterhood,  who  airn  at  perfection,  must,  like 
the  Manichean  elect,  soar  to  the  grandeur  of  abstinence  and 
virginity. 

This  admiration  of  virginity  began  at  an  early  period  of 
Christianity.  Ignatius,  who  was  the  companion  of  the  inspired 
messengers  of  the  Gospel,  commenced,  in  his  epistolarly  address 
to  Polycarp  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  to  eulogize, 
though  in  very  measured  language,  the  haughty  virgins  of  the 
day.  This  affectation  of  holiness,  which  was  then  in  its  infancy, 
had  presumed  to  rear  its  head  above  unpretending  and  humble 
purity.  Ignatius  was  followed  by  Justin  and  Athenagoras  :  but 
still  in  the  language  of  moderation.  Their  encomiu  ms,  however, 
were  general,  and  had  no  particular  reference  to  the  clergy. 
Tertullian,  led  astray  by  the  illusions  of  Montanism,  forsook 
the  moderation  of  Ignatius,  Justin,  and  Athenagoras,  and  ex- 
tolled virginity  to  the  sky.  He  exhausted  language  in  vilifying 

1  Jerom,  4.  192.     Bruys,  1.  142.     Moreri,  4.  142.     Augustin,  1.  739   et  8.  14. 


534  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

marriage  and  praising  celibacy.  Tertullian,  in  his  flattery  of 
this  mock  purity,  was  equalled  or  excelled  by  Origen,  Chrysos- 
tom,  Augustine,  Basil,  Ambrosius,  Jerome,  Syricius,  Innocent, 
and  Fulgentius.1  These  saints  and  pontiffs  represented  virginity 
as  the  excellence  of  Christianity,  and  viewed  with  admiration 
the  system  which  Paul  of  Tarsus,  under  the  inspiration  of  God, 
characterized  as  a  *  doctrine  of  devils.' 

The  reason  of  this  admiration  maybe  worth  an  investigation. 
One  reason  arose  from  the  difficulty  of  abstinence.  Virginity, 
Jerome  admits,  'is  difficult  and  therefore  rare.'  The  Monk 
of  Palestine  was  a  living  example  of  this  difficulty.  Sitting,  the 
companion  of  scorpions  in  a  frightful  solitude,  parched  with  the 
rays  of  the  sun,  clothed  in  sackcloth,  pale  with  fasting,  and 
quenching  his  thirst  only  from  the  cold  spring,  the  Saint,  in  his 
own  confession,  wept  and  groaned,  while  '  his  blood  boiled  with 
the  flames  of  licentiousness.'  Bernard  prescribes  '  fasting,  as  a 
necessary  remedy  for  the  wantonness  of  the  flesh  and  the  inflam- 
mation of  the  blood.'  Chrysostom  makes  similar  concessions 
of  difficulty.2  The  passion  indeed,  which  prompts  the  matri- 
monial union,  being  necessary  for  the  continuation  of  the  species, 
has,  by  the  Creator,  been  deeply  planted  in  the  breast,  and 
forms  an  essential  part  of  the  constitution.  The  prohibition  is 
high  treason  against  the  laws  of  God,  and  open  rebellion  against 
the  spring  tide  of  human  nature  and  the  full  flow  of  human 
affection.  An  attempt,  therefore,  to  stem  the  irresistible  current 
must  ever  recoil  with  tremendous  effect  on  its  authors.  But 
the  affectation  of  singularity,  the  show  of  sanctity,  and  the  pro- 
fession of  extraordinary  attainments,  which  outrage  the  senti- 
ments of  nature,  will,  like  Phaeton's  attempt  to  drive  the  chariot 
of  the  sun,  attract  the  gaze  of  the  spectator,  gain  the  applause 
of  superstition,  and  figure  in  the  annals  of  the  world. 

Jerome  and  Chrysostom,  quoted  by  the  Rhe mists,  say  that 
continency  may  always  be  obtained  by  prayer.  The  attainment, 
according  to  the  Grecian  and  Roman  Saint,  is  the  uniform  re- 
ward of  supplication  to  heaven.  Theodolf  makes  a  similar 
statement.  But  the  allegation  of  Jerome  and  Chrysostom  as 
well  as  Theodolf,  is  the  offspring  of  inconsistency,  and  wholly 
incompatible  with  their  usual  sentiments.  Chrysostom,  like  Je- 
rome, gives,  in  another  place,  a  different  view  of  the  votaries  of 
virginity  in  his  day.  Some  of  these,  to  counteract  the  move- 
ments of  the  flesh,  cased  the  body  in  steel,  put  on  sack-cloth, 
ran  to  the  mountains,  spent  night  and  day  in  fasting,  vigils,  and 
in  all  the  rigor  of  severity.  Shunning  the  company  of  women, 

1  Ignat.  c.  5.     Cotel.  ii.  92.     Justin,  22. 

3  Sola  libidinum  incendia  bulliebant,  Jerom,  4.  30,  177.  Necesse  est,  lascivieus 
caro  oerum  crebris  frangatur  jejuniis.  Galore  sanguinis  inflamata,  ut  evudera 
posait.  omni  indiget  custodia.  Bernard,  1114.  Chrysostom,  1.  249. 


PROGRESS  OF  CLERICAL  CELIBACY  IN  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH.    535 

the  whole  sex  were  forbidden  access  to  their  solitary  retreat. 
All  this  self-mortification,  however,  could  scarcely  allay  the 
rebellion  of  their  blood.1  The  relation  must  convey  a  singular 
idea  of  these  victims  of  superstition,  and  the  manners  of  the  age. 
The  portrait  is  like  the  representation  of  a  Lucian  or  Swift, 
who,  in  sarcastic  irony,  would  ridicule  the  whole  transaction ; 
while  it  displays,  in  striking  colours,  the  difficulty  of  the  attempt 
as  well  as  the  folly  of  the  system. 

The  difficulty  of  continence,  if  reports  may  be  credited,  was 
not  peculiar  to  Chrysostom's  day.  Succeeding  saints  felt  the 
arduousness  of  the  mighty  attempt.  A  few  instances  of  this 
may  amuse,  as  exemplified  in  the  lives  of  Francis,  Godric, 
Ulfric,  Aquinas,  Benedict,  an  Irish  priest,  the  Bishop  of  Sher- 
burn,  and  related  by  Bonaventura,  Paris,  Malmesbury,  Mabil- 
lon,  Ranolf,  and  the  Roman  Breviary. 

The  Seraphic  Francis,  who  flourished  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury, was  the  father  of  the  Franciscans.  The  saint,  though  de- 
voted to  chastity  and  brimful  of  the  spirit,  was,  it  seems,  some- 
times troubled  with  the  movements  of  the  flesh.  An  enemy  that 
wrought  within  was  difficult  to  keep  in  subjection.  His  saint- 
ship,  however,  on  these  occasions,  adopted  an  effectual  way  ot 
cooling  the  internal  flame,  and  allaying  the  carnal  conflict.  He 
stood,  in  winter,  to  the  neck  in  a  pit  full  of  icy  water.  One  day, 
being  attacked  in  an  extraordinary  manner  by  the  demon  of 
sensuality,  he  stripped  naked,  and  belaboured  his  unfortunate 
back  with  a  disciplinarian  whip  :  and  then  leaving  his  cell,  he 
buried  his  body,  naked  as  it  was,  in  a  deep  wreath  of  snow.2 
The  cold  bath,  the  knotted  thong,  and  the  snowy  bed  were 
necessary  for  discharging  the  superabundant  caloric  of  his 
saintship's  constitution. 

Godric,  an  English  hermit,  was  troubled  with  the  same  com 
plaint,  and  had  recourse  to  the  same  remedy.  He  was  a  native 
of  Norfolk,  but  had  visited  Jerusalem,  wept  over  the  sacred 
sepulchre,  and  kissed,  in  holy  devotion,  the  tomb  of  Emmanuel, 
and  the  monument  of  redemption.  He  lived  on  the  banks  of 
the  Werus,  and  was  the  companion  of  the  bear  and  the  scorpion, 
which  were  gentle  and  obliging  to  the  man  of  God.  But  he 
had  to  contend,  even  in  his  solitude,  with  temptation.  Satan, 
assuming  the  form  of  a  lion  or  a  wolf,  endeavoured  to  allure 
him  from  his  duty.  These  outward  trials,  however,  were 


rtepiywovtai,  tys  xa-fa  tijv  tftidvfuav  /icw/taj-     Chrysostom,  1.  234. 

A  Deo  datur  contineutia,  sed  petite  et  accipietis.     Theod.  in  Dachery,  1,  255. 

1  II  se  jettoit  souvent  en  hyver  dans  une  fosse  pleine  de  glace,  afin  de  vaincre 
parfaitement  1'ennemi  domestique.  Bray.  3.  151.  Etant  attaque  un  jour  d'une 
grande  tentation  de  In  chair,  il  se  depouilla  et  se  donna  une  rude  discipline.  Pui« 
il  se  jetta  dan*  la  neige  Morery,  4.  179. 


536  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  .* 

nothing  compared  with  the  inward  conflicts,  arising  from  the 
ferment  of  concupiscence  and  "  the  lusts  of  the  tiesh."  He 
counteracted  the  rebellion  of  his  blood,  however,  by  the  rigour 
of  discipline.  The  cold  earth  was  his  only  bed,  and  a  stone, 
which  he  placed  under  his  head,  was  his  nightly  pillow.  The 
herb  of  the  field,  and  the  water  of  the  spring,  were  his  meat 
and  drink,  which  he  used  only  when  compelled  by  the  assaults 
of  hunger  and  thirst.  Clothed  in  hair  cloth,  he  spent  his  days 
in  tears  and  fasting.  The  hermit,  with  these  applications  for 
keeping  the  body  under,  used  a  sufficiently  cooling  regimen. 
During  the  wintry  frost  and  snow,  he  immersed  himself,  says 
his  historian,  in  the  stream  of  the  Werus,  where,  pouring  forth 
prayers  and  tears,  he  offered  himself  a  living  victim  to  God.1 
The  flesh,  it  is  likely,  after  this  nightly  dip,  was  discharged  of 
all  unnecessary  heat  and  became  duly  cool.  But  the  Devil,  it 
seems,  played  some  pranks  on  the  hermit,  while  he  was  enjoy- 
ing the  cold  bath,  and  freezing  his  body  for  the  good  of  his 
soul.  Satan  sometimes  ran  away  with  Godric's  clothes  which 
were  on  the  banks.  But  Godric  terrified  Beelzebub  with 
shouts,  so  that  affrighted,  he  dropped  his  hair-cloth  garment 
and  fled.  A  relic  of  Godric's  beard,  says  Bede,  v/as,  after  his 
death,  transferred  to  Durham,  and  adorned  the  church* of  that 
city. 

Ulric's  history  is  of  a  similar  kind.  He  was  born  near 
Bristol,  and  fought  the  enemies  of  the  human  race  for  twenty- 
nine  years.  He  was  visited,  notwithstanding,  by  the  demon 
of  licentiousness.  The  holy  man,  in  his  distress,  applied  the 
remedy  of  fasting  and  vigils,  and  endeavoured  to  subdue  the 
stimulations  of  the  flesh  by  the  regimen  of  the  cold  bath.  He 
fasted,  till  the  skin  was  the  only  remaining  covering  of  his 
bones.  He  nightly  descended  into  a  vessel  filled  with  freezing 
water,  and  during  the  hours  of  darkness,  continued,  in  this 
comfortable  lodging,  which  constituted  his  head  quarters,  to 
sing  the  Psalms  of  David.2  This  Christian  discipline,  in  all 
probability,  delivered  his  veins  of  all  superfluous  caloric,  and 
enabled  him  to  practice  moderation  during  the  day. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  the  angelic  doctor,  required  angelic  aid  to 
counteract  the  natural  disposition  of  the  mind  or  rather  the 
flesh.  He  was  born  of  a  noble  family,  and  enjoyed  the  benefit 

1  Insultus  libidinis  lacrymis  arcebat  et  jejuniis.  Ut  carnis  incenda  superaret, 
cilicio  camera  domabat  asperrimo.  Hieme,  gelu,  et  nive  rigenti,  nudus  flumen  in- 
gressus,  nocte  ibi  tota  et  usque  ad  collum  submersus,  orationes  et  psalmos  cum 
lacrymis  profundebat.  M.  Paris,  114.  Beda,  741. 

*  Noctibus,  in  vas  quoddam  cum  frigore  nudus,  aqua  plenum  frigida,  descenders 
Bolebat,  in  quo  psalmos  Davidicos  Domino  offerebat,  et  sic  aliquatndiu  perse  ve- 
rans,  carnis  incentiva,  cujus  acerrimos  patiebatur  stimulos,  mortificabut  in  aqui*. 
M.  Paris,  89. 


PROGRESS  OF  CLERICAL  CELIBACY  IN  THE  ROMISH  CHURCH.  537 

of  a  Parisian  education.  His  friends  opposed,  but  in  vain,  his 
resolution  of  immuring  himself  in  the  retreats  of  monkery. 
He  resisted  their  attempts  with  signal  success,  though,  it  seems, 
not  always  with  spiritual  weapons.  He  chased  one  woman, 
who  opposed  his  resolution,  with  a  fire-brand.  The  blessed 
youth,  says  the  Roman  breviary,  praying  on  bended  knees 
before  the  cross,  was  seized  with  sleep,  and  seemed,  through  a 
dream,  '  to  undergo  a  constriction  of  a  certain  part  by  angels, 
and  lost,  from  that  time  forward,  all  sense  of  concupiscence.'1 
His  angelic  saintship's  natural  propensity  required  supernatural 
power  to  restrain  its  fury.  The  grasp  of  angels  was  necessary 
to  allay  his  carnality  and  confer  continence. 

Benedict,  in  his  distress,  had  recourse  to  a  pointed  remedy. 
This  saint,  like  Aquinas,  was  born  of  a  noble  family.  He  was 
educated  at  Rome,  and  devoted  himself  wholly  to  religion  or 
rather  to  superstition.  He  lived  three  years  in  a  deep  cave; 
and,  in  his  retreat,  wrought  many  miracles.  'He  knocked  the 
Devil  out  of  one  monk  with  a  blow  of  his  fist,  and  out  of 
another  with  the  lash  of  a  whip.'  But  Satan,  actuated  by 
malice  and  envious  of  human  happiness,  appeared  to  Benedict 
in  the  form  of  a  blackbird,  and  renewed,  in  his  heart,  the  image 
of  a  woman  whom  he  had  seen  at  Rome.  The  Devil,  in  this 
matter,  rekindled  the  torch  of  passion,  and  excited  such  a  con- 
flagration in  the  flesh,  that  the  saint  nearly  yielded  to  the  temp- 
tation. But  he  soon,  according  to  Mabillon  and  the  Roman 
breviary,  discovered  a  remedy.  Having  undressed  himself, 
1  he  rolled  his  naked  body  on  nettles  and  thorns,  till  the  lacera- 
ted carcass,  through  pain,  lost  all  sense  of  pleasure.'2  The 
father  of  the  Benedictines,  it  appears,  had  his  own  difficulty 
in  attempting  to  allay  the  ferment  of  the  flesh,  notwithstanding 
the  allegations  of  Jerome  and  Chrysostom. 

An  Irish  priest,  actuated  like  Francis,  Godric,  Ulric,  Aquinas, 
and  Benedict,  by  a  carnal  propensity,  had  recourse  to  a  differ- 
ent remedy.  The  holy  man  lived  near  Patrick's  purgatory  in 
Ireland,  and  spent  his  days  in  official  duty  and  in  works  of 
charity.  Rising  early  each  morning,  he  walked  round  the 
adjoining  cemetery,  and  preferred  his  orisons  for  those  whose 
mortal  remains  there  mouldered  in  the  clay,  and  mingled  with 
their  kindred  dust.  His  devotion,  however,  did  not  place  him 
beyond  the  reach  of  temptation.  Satan,  envying  his  happiness 

1  Sentire  visus  est  sibi  ab  angelis  constringi  lumbos,  quo  ex  tempore  omni  pos» 
tea  libidinis  sensti  caruit.  Brev.  Rom.  702. 

3  Alapa  monacho  inflicta  infestum  hospitem  expulit,  quern  alias  flugello  a  rno- 
nacho  vago  ejecerat.  Mabillon,  1.  89.  Nudum  se  in  urticas  ac  vepres  taradiu 
volutaverit,  dum  voluptutis  sensus  dolore  penitus  opprimeretur.  Mabillon,  1.  8. 
Brev.  Rom.  724. 


538  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

and  hating  his  sanctity,  tempted  the  priest  in  the  form  of  a 
beautiful  girl.  He  was  near  yielding  to  the  allurement.  He 
led  the  tempter  into  his  bed-chamber,  when  recollecting  him- 
self, he  resolved  to  prevent  the  sinful  gratification  for  the  present 
and  in  futurity.  He  seized  a  scalpellum,  and  adopting,  like 
Origen,  the  remedy  of  amputation,  he  incapacitated  himself 
for  such  sensuality  in  time  to  come.1 

Adhelm,  bishop  of  Sherburn,  had  two  ways  of  subduing  the 
insurrections  of  the  ilesh.  One  consisted  in  remaining,  during 
the  winter,  in  a  river  which  ran  past  his  monastery.  He  con- 
tinued, for  nights,  immersed  in  this  stream,  regardless  of  the 
icy  cold.  The  frosty  bath,  in  all  probability,  extracted  the 
superfluous  and  troublesome  warmth  from  his  veins,  and  stop- 
ped the  ebullition  of  his  rebellious  blood.  But  the  other  remedy 
seems  to  have  been  rather  a  dangerous  experiment.  When  the 
pulse  began  to  beat  high,  his  saintship  called  for  a  fair  virgin, 
who  lay  in  his  bed  till  he  sung  the  whole  order  of  the  Psalms, 
and  overcame,  by  this  means,  the  paroxysm  of  passion.2  The 
sacred  music  and  this  beautiful  maid,  wno,  notwithstanding  lier 
virginity,  was  very  accomodating,  soothed  the  irritation  of  the 
flesh,  and  castigated  the  ocillations  of  the  pulse,  till  it  beat  with 
philosophical  precision  and  Christian  regularity. 

A  second  reason  for  the  preference  of  virginity  arose  from  the 
supposed  pollution  of  matrimony.  Great  variety  indeed  has, 
on  this  subject,  prevailed  among  the  saints  and  the  theologians 
of  Romanism.  Some  have  represented  marriage  as  a  means 
of  purity,  and  some  of  pollution.  Clemens,  Augustine,  Ambro- 
sius,  Chrysostom,  Fulgentius,  Harding,  and  Calmet  characterize 
this  Romish  sacrament  as  an  institution  of  holiness,  sanctity, 
honour,  and  utility.  The  council  of  Gangra  anathematized  all 
who  should  reproach  wedlock :  and  this  sentence  has  been 
incorporated  with  the  canon  law.8  Augustine,  Chrysostom, 
Arnbrosius,  and  Fulgentius,  however,  in  self-contradiction, 
sometimes  speak  of  the  matrimonial  institution  in  terms  of 
invective  and  detestation. 

1  Cultrum  arripuit  et  propria  membra  virilia  abscindens,  foras  projecit.  M. 
Paris,  92. 

8  Quando  carnis  sentiret  incentiva,  virginem  pulchram  in  suo  strata  tamdiu 
Becum  retineret,  quousque  Psalterium  ex  ordine  diceret.  Rauolf,  245. 

Cubilans,  aliquam  foemiiiam  detitiebat,  quoad  carnis  tepescente  lubrico  quieto 
et  immoto  discederet  ammo.  Malmsbury.  13. 

Ut  vim  rebelli  corpori  concisseret,  fond  se  humero  tenus  immergebat.  Malm, 
de  vita  Adhelm.  Wharton,  2.  13. 

3  Ayta  8s  i}  yfvtaif.  Clem.  Strom.  III.  P.  559.  Concubitus  conjugalis  non 
eolum  est  licitus,  verum  est  utilis  et  honestus.  Aug.  con.  Pelag.  10.  270.  Munda 
est  conjugia.  Amb.  2.  364.  in  Corin.  VII.  Atxtuoj  o  ya/*oj.  Chrvsos.  1.  38. 
Sancta  sunt  Christianorum  conjugia.  Fnlg.  ad.  Gall.  Le  lit  nuptial  est  pur  et 
honorable.  Calmet,  23.  7G6.  Si  quis  matrimonium  vituperet,  et  etun  quae  cum 
marito  suo  dormit,  sit  anathema.  Labb.  2.  427.  Crabb.  1.  289-  Pithou,  42. 


VITUPERATIONS    OF    MATRIMONY    BY    POPISH    DOCTORS.       639 

Many  saints,  doctors,  pontiffs,  and  councils,  on  the  contrary, 
such  as  Origen,  Jerome,  Siricius,  Innocent,  Bellarmine,  Estius, 
Pithou,  the  canon  law,  the  Rhemish  annotators,  and  a  party  in 
the  council  of  Trent,  have  represented  this  Popish  sacrament, 
especially  in  the  clergy,  as  an  appointment  of  pollution  and  de- 
gradation.1 Origen,  who  is  quoted  by  Pithou,  reckoned  'con- 
jugal intercourse  inconsistent  with  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.'  Jerome,  if  possible,  surpassed  Origen  in  bitterness. 
The  monk  of  Palestine  growled  at  the  very  name  of  matrimony, 
and  discharged  against  the  institution,  in  all  its  bearings,  whole 
torrents  of  vituperation  and  sarcasm.  Surcharged,  as  usual, 
with  gall  and  wormwood,  which  flowed  in  copious  efflux  from 
his  pen,  the  saint  poured  vials  of  wrath  on  this  object  of  his 
holy  aversion.  Marriage,  according  to  this  casuist,  '  effeminates 
the  manly  mind.'  A  man,  says  the  monk, '  cannot  pray,  unless 
he  refrain  from  conjugal  enjoyments.'  The  duty  of  a  husband 
is,  in  his  creed,  '  incompatible  with  the  duty  of  a  Christian.' 
This  is  a  sample  of  his  acrimony.  Those  who  would  relish  a 
full  banquet,  may  read  his  precious  production  against  Jovinian. 

Siricius,  the  Roman  pontiff,  called  marriage  filthy,  and  char- 
acterized married  persons,  *  as  carnal  and  incapable  of  pleasing 
God.'  Innocent  adopted  his  predecessor's  language  and  senti- 
ment, and  denounced  this  Romish  sacrament  as  a  contamination. 
Conjugal  cohabitation,  says  Bellarmine,  is  attended  with  impu- 
rity, '  and  carnalizes  the  whole  man,  soul  and  body.'  Estius 
affirms  that  '  the  nuptial  bed  immerses  the  whole  soul  in  car- 
nality.' Gratian  and  Pithou  incorporate,  in  the  canon  law,  the 
theology  of  Origen,  which  represents  the  matrimonal  sacrament 
as  calculated  to  quench  the  Spirit.  The  statements  of  the  Rhe- 
mists  are  equally  gross  and  disgusting.  Wedlock,  according  to 
these  dirty  annotators,  is  a  continued  scene  of  sensuality  and 
pollution.  The  marriage  of  the  clergy,  or  of  persons  who  have 
made  vows  of  chastity,  is,  these  theologians  aver,  the  worst  kind 
of  fornication.  A  faction  in  the  council  of  Trent  characterized 
marriage,  which  they  defined  to  be  a  sacrament,  as  '  a  state  of 
carnality ;  and  these  received  no  reprehension  from  the  holy 
unerring  assembly. 

The  abettors  of  Romanism,  in  this  manner,  condemn  the  con- 
jugal sacrament  as  an  abomination.  These  theologians,  on  this 

1  Non  datur  praesentia  Sancti  Spiritus,  tempore  quo  conjugates  actus  geruntur. 
Origen,  Horn.  6.  in  Pithou,  383.  Animum  virilem  effoeminat.  Jerom,  4.  170. 
Laieus  et  quicunque  fidelis  orare  non  potest,  nisi  careat  officio  conjugali.  Jerom. 
4.  150,  175.  Obscoenis  cupiditatibus  inhiant.  In  carne  sunt;  Deo  placere  non 
possunt.  Siricms  ad  Him.  Crabb.  1.  417,  456.  Propter  acturn  conjugalem  qui 
nominem  reddit  totum  carnalem.  Animam  ipsam  carnalera  quodamtnodo  lacit. 
Bell.  1.  18,  19.  Conjugalis  actus  quo  animus  quodammodo  carni  totus  immergitur. 
Estius,  252.  Manage  etoit  un  etat  charnel.  Paolo,  2.  449.  Rheimists  on  Coriu.  vii. 


540  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

topic,  entertained  the  grossest  conceptions.  Their  own  filthy 
ideas  rose  no  higher  than  the  gratification  of  the  mere  animal 
passion,  unconnected  with  refinement  or  delicacy.  Their  views, 
on  this  subject,  were  detached  from  all  the  comminglings  of  the 
understanding  and  the  heart,  and  from  all  the  endearments  of 
father,  mother,  and  child.  Their  minds  turned  only  on  scenes 
of  gross  sensuality,  unallied  to  any  moral  or  sentimental  feeling, 
and  insulated  from  all  the  reciprocations  of  friendship  or  affec- 
tion. Celibacy  and  virginity,  which  were  unassociated  with 
these  carnal  gratifications  and  which  affected  a  superiority  to 
their  allurements,  became,  with  persons  of  this  disposition,  the 
objects  of  admiration. 

Matrimony,  however,  though  it  were  gross  as  the  concep- 
tions of  these  authors,  is  far  purer  than  their  language.  The 
sentiments  and  phraseology  of  the  Roman  saints  on  virginity 
are,  in  point  of  obscenity,  beyond  all  competition.  The  diction 
as  well  as  the  ideas  of  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Augustine,  and 
Basil,  would  call  the  burning  blush  of  shame  into  the  cheek  of 
a  Juvenal,  a  Horace,  an  Ovid,  or  a  Petronius.  Chrysostom. 
though  disgusting,  is  indeed  less  filthy  than  Jerome,  Augustine 
or  Basil.  Jerome,  bursting  with  fury  against  wedlock,  follows 
in  the  footsteps  of  Chrysostom,  and  improves,  but  the  wrong 
way,  on  the  Grecian's  indecency.  Augustine,  in  pollution, 
excels  both  Chrysostom  and  Jerome.  But  Basil,  in  impurity, 
soars  above  all  rivalry,  and,  transcending  Chrysostom,  Jerome, 
and  Augustine,  fairly  carries  off  the  palm  of  filthiness.  The 
unalloyed  obscenity  of  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  Augustine, 
rises,  in  the  pages  of  Basil,  to  concentrated  blackguardism. 
Du  Pin  confesses  that  Basil's  treatise  on  virginity  contains 
4  some  passages  which  may  offend  nice  ears.'  Basil's  Benedic- 
tine editor  admits  its  tendency  to  sully  maiden  modesty  with 
images  of  indecency.1 

These  saints  must  have  had  a  practical  acquaintance  with  the 
subject,  to  which  they  have  done  so  much  justice  in  description. 
Speculation,  without  practice,  would  never  have  made  them 
such  adepts.  Their  sanctified  contamination  is  so  perfect  in 
its  kind,  that  it  could  not  be  the  offspring  of  mere  theory 
without  action.  This  charge  against  their  saintships  may  be 
substantiated  by  many  quotations  from  their  works,  which, 
however,  shall,  for  the  sake  of  decency,  be  left  in  the  obscurity 
of  the  original  Greek  and  Latin.2 

i  Basil,  3.  588.     Du  Pin,  1.224. 

2M^  <jvy£«p6iff0<M  f»7  pi£ct  iov  jtoBov.  Chrys.  I.  229.  Avtfv  rtpojSoJuop 
itpoatrjaa$  frjv  ivv  opov  ^c|tv,  ....  sv  yakrjvrj  rtoXAjy  xaJQtatqatv  jy/taj.  Chiyos, 
I.  274  de  Vir.  c.  9. 


£Xsl    T>a£   rt^yaj    to    tfrfcp/ua    1*0    fv    r^iv,    xa,t    ftep&Otv 
Chrysos.  Horn.  62.  p.  624. 


PAPAL  POLICY,  A  CAUSE  OF  CLERICAL  CELIBACY.   541 

Dens,  in  modern  times,  has  outrun  Basil,  and  all  the  saints 
of  antiquity,  on  the  stadium  of  blackguardism.  This  author 
justly  claims  the  honour  of  carrying  this  sublime  branch  of 
science  to  perfection.  His  theology,  in  which  contamination 
hves  and  breathes,  is  a  treasury  of  filthiness  that  can  never  be 
surpassed  or  exhausted.  He  has  shown  an  unrivalled  genius 
for  impurity  :  and  future  discover}7"  can,  in  this  department  of 
learning,  never  eclipse  his  glory  5  nor  deprive  this  precious  divine 
of  his  well-earned  fame  and  merited  immortality.  The 
philosophy  of  Newton  has  been  improved.  His  astronomy, 
notwithstanding  its  grandeur,  has  received  many  accessions 
from  a  Herschel,  and  a  La  Place.  But  the  sublimated  obsce- 
nity of  Dens,  finished  in  its  kind,  admits  of  no  advancement  or 
progression.  This  doctor,  however,  does  not  bear  '  his  blushing 
honours  '  alone.  The  Popish  prelacy  of  Ireland,  by  adopting 
his  refined  speculations  to  promote  the  education  of  the  priest- 
hood, share  in  his  triumphs  :  and  the  inferior  clergy,  who  are 
doomed  to  study  his  divinity,  will  no  doubt  manifest  the  value 
of  his  system  by  the  superiority  of  their  theological  and  holy 
attainments. 

A  third  reason  for  the  injunction  of  sacerdotal  celibacy  arose 
from  pontifical  policy.  Cardinal  Rodolf,  arguing  in  a  Roman 
consistory  in  favour  of  clerical  celibacy,  affirmed  that  the  priest- 
hood, if  allowed  to  marry,  would  transfer  their  attachment  from 
the  pope  to  their  family  and  prince  :  and  this  would  tend  to  the 
injury  of  the  ecclesiastical  community.  The  holy  see,  the  car- 

Creata  sunt  genitalia,  ut  gestiamus  in  naturalem  copulam.  Geuitalium  hoc  est 
officiiim  ut  semper  fruantur  natura  sua,  et  uxoris  ardentissimam  gulum  fortuita 
libido  restinguat.  Frustra  hsec  omnia  virorum  habes  si  complexu  non  uteris 
foeminarum.  Jerom.  Adv.  Jovinian.  4.  177. 

Obstetiix  virginis  cujusdam  iutegritatem,  manu  velut  explorans  dum  inspicit, 
perdidit.  Totum  commovet  homiiiem  animi  simul  affectu  cum  carnis  appetitu 
conjuncto  et  permixto,  ut  ea  voluptas  sequatur,  qua  major  in  corporis  voluptatibus 
nulla  est,  ita  ut  motnento  ipso  temporis  quo  ad  ejus  pervenitur  extremum,  pene 
omnis  acies  et  quasi  vigilia  cogitationis  obruatur.  Seminaret  prolem  vir,  suscipe- 
ret  foemiua  genitalibus  membris,  quatido  id  opus  esset.  Tune  potuisse  utero  con- 
jugis,  salva  integritate,  foeminei  genitales  virile  semen  immitti,  sicut  nunc  potest 
eadem  integritate  salva  ex  utero  virginis  fluxus  menstrui  cruoris  emitti.  Eadem 
quippe  via  possit  illud  injici,  qua  hoc  potest  ejici.  Augustin.  de  civit.  Dei,  1.18 
et  XIV.  16,  24,  26.  P.  18,  368,  374,  377. 

Artoxortsvtuv  xa-tuOtv  fcoi/  StSv/Awv,  oc  f^j  yov^?  arto  o<j$vo$  xat  vftypw  tiii  ro 
kairtov  fAOptov   Siaxovot,  yivovtat,,   fivtsai  fisv  peta  tvjv  rofArjv  avu>  6t  Ttopot,  ^E 
5s  tv  rotf  vf^potj  ?qg  frtiSv^utas  scat  trjv  yovyv  «T'<OJ  s|a<|)pi^«cr77?,  OKJfpftT'at 
xata^oX^v  •z'^f  yor^j  o  ai'^p  ....  av^p,  Stafla/icvwv  T'COV  SiSv^cov  avuQsv 
,   arat   7tpo$  artopov  evfevdev   rtapartfjit^vT'wv,    ov|^j  fxrtsaovtos  tov   artopov 

trjv   fTttflayuow/   xata/tapouvf-rat.      'O  8e    xx   sxuv  °&{V  T<0 
uoytj  rs  tovov  vfyirjaiv  .  .  •  Ilap^Evoj  artaSvpsfo  o-tt  erU  *t]S 
rtj  CDVK^OJ,    jtfpWTtfvtfcfcfo  fisv  avtqv  ffirta>9<A$*  xai 


*tj  aapxt  tjyj  ^ut|f  wj  tijv  hvaaav  -tocj  fy-ypaaiv  aXptw$  f/A^an/wi/.      Basil,  De  Virgin, 
3,  646. 


642  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

dina.1  alleged,  would,  by  this  means,  be  soon  limited  to  the 
Roman  city.  The  Transalpine  party  in  the  council  of  Trent, 
used  the  same  argument.  The  introduction  of  priestly  matri- 
mony, this  faction  urged,  would  sever  the  clergy  from  their  close 
dependance  on  the  popedom,  and  turn  their  affections  to  their 
family,  and  consequently  to  their  king  and  country.1  Marriage 
connects  men  with  their  sovereign,  and  with  the  land  of  their 
nativity.  Celibacy,  on  the  contrary,  transfers  the  attention  of 
the  clergy  from  his  majesty  and  the  state,  to  his  holiness  and 
the  church.  The  man  who  has  a  wife  and  children,  is  bound 
by  conjugal  and  paternal  attachment  to  his  country  ;  and  ibels 
the  warmest  glow  of  parental  love,  mingled  with  the  flame  of 
patriotism.  His  interests  and  affections  are  entwined  with  the 
honour  and  prosperity  of  his  native  land  :  and  this,  in  conse- 
quence, he  will  prefer  to  the  aggrandizement  of  the  Romish 
hierarchy,  or  the  grandeur  of  the  Roman  pontiff.  The  dearest 
objects  of  his  heart  are  embraced  in  the  soil  that  gave  them 
birth,  the  people  among  whom  they  live,  and  the  government 
that  affords  them  protection.  Celibacy,  on  the  contrary,  p re- 
eludes  all  these  engagements,  and  directs  the  undivided  affec- 
tions of  the  priesthood  to  the  church  and  its  ecclesiastical 
sovereign.  The  clergy  become  dependent  on  the  pope  rather 
than  on  their  king,  and  endeavour  to  promote  the  prosperity  of 
the  papacy  rather  than  their  country.  Such  are  not  linked 
with  the  state  by  an  offspring,  whose  happiness  is  involved  in 
the  prosperity  of  the  nation.  Gregory  the  Seventh,  accordingly 
the  great  enemy  of  kings,  was  the  distinguished  patron  of 
sacerdotal  celibacy. 

The  history  of  clerical  celibacy,  which  will  show  its  varia- 
tions, may  be  divided  into  two  periods.  The  one  begins  with 
the  edict  of  Siricius  in  385,  and  ends  at  the  popedom  of 
Gregory.  The  other  commences  with  the  papacy  of  Gregory, 
and  continues  till  the  present  time. 

The  first  period  contains  the  history  of  celibacy  among  the 
Greeks  and  Latins  for  near  seven  hundred  years.  The  eastern 
and  western  communions  varied  on  this  point  of  discipline. 
The  Latins  in  the  west,  exclude  the  whole  clergy  from  their 
sacrament  of  matrimony.  The  Greeks  in  the  east,  forbid  the 
prelacy,  but  allow  the  priesthood  and  deaconship  to  cohabit 

1  Si  Ton  permettoit  aux  pretres  de  se  marier,  1'interet  le  leurs  families,  de  leurs 
femmes,  et  de  leurs  enfans,  les  tireroit  de  la  dependance  du  Pape,  pour  lea  mettre 
sous  celle  de  leurs  princes,  et  que  la  tendresse  pour  leurs  enfans  les  feroit  conde- 
scendre  a  tout,  au  prejudice  de  1'Eglise.  En  peu  de  temps,  I'autorit6  du  saint 
siege  se  borneroit  a.  la  ville  de  Rome.  Paolo,  2.  118. 

L'introduction  du  manage  dans  le  Clerge,  en  tournant  toute  1'affection  dos  pr6- 
tres  vers  leurs  femmes,  et  leurs  enfans,  et  par  consequent,  ver  leurs  famille,  et 
leur  patrie,  les  detacheroit  en  meme  temps  dhe  la  dependance  etroite,  ou  ils  etoient 
du  saint  siege.  Paolo,  2.  449. 


PROGRESS     OF    CELIBACY    IN    THE    EAST.  543 

with  the  women  whom  they  had  married  prior  lo  their  ordina- 
tion.1 

This  usage,  which  crept  into  the  oriental  communion  by 
slow  and  gradual  steps,  commenced  with  a  bigoted  and  super- 
stitious respect  for  celibacy  and  virginity.  Superstition,  at  the 
introduction  of  this  custom,  began  to  entertain  a  blind  and 
unmeaning  veneration  for  abstinence  in  man  and  woman.  The 
populace,  therefore,  preferring  sacerdotal  celibacy,  separated 
in  some  instances  from  the  communion  of  the  married  clergy. 
The  evil,  from  its  magnitude,  required  a  synodal  enactment  to 
check  its  progress.  The  council  of  Gangra,  therefore,  about 
the  year  324,  declared  '  its  esteem  for  the  chaste  bond  of  wed- 
lock, and  anathematized  such  as  left  the  communion,  or  refused 
the  benediction  of  a  married  priest.'2  This  assembly  deposed 
Eustathius  of  Sebastia  for  encouraging  this  superstition,  and 
for  representing  the  oblations  of  wedded  clergy  as  an  abomina- 
tion. The  Gangran  Synod  possessed  great  authority.  Its 
decisions  were  confirmed  by  many  pontiffs  and  councils,  and 
were  received  into  the  ancient  code  of  the  church. 

The  clergy  therefore,  like  the  laity,  married,  as  is  attested 
by  Socrates  and  Nicephorus,  and  acknowledged  by  Gratian 
and  Mendoza,  and  had  children.  A  few  might  abstain  through 
submission  to  the  prepossessions  of  the  people:  and  a  few  from 
a  supposed  sanctity,  which,  in  many  instances,  ihe  pastor,  like 
the  flock,  ascribed  to  celibacy.  The  superior  purity,  indeed, 
which  superstition  attached  to  a  single  life,  influenced  many  of 
the  clergy.  The  sixth  apostolical  canon,  therefore,  to  repress 
this  error,  excommunicated,  and,  in  case  of  contumacy,  degra- 
ded the  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  who,  under  a  shew  of  religion, 
should  put  away  his  wife.  Those  who  remained  single,  how- 
ever, as  the  above-mentioned  Greek  historians  relate,  acted 
from  the  choice  of  their  own  mind,  and  not  from  the  obligation 
of  a  law.  No  canons  had  been  enacted  against  matrimony  or 
in  favour  of  abstinence.  The  clergy,  Gratian  affirms,  were,  at 
the  time  of  the  Gangran  council,  unfettered  by  the  law  of  con- 
tinence. Mendoza  admits  the  liberty,  which  the  eastern 
priesthood  enjoyed,  of  cohabiting  with  the  women  whom  they 
married  before  their  ordination.3 

Thessaly,  Thessalonica,  Macedonia,  and  Achaia,  however, 
became,  at  an  early  period,  an  exception  to  this  regulation. 

>  Pithou,  42.     Dist.  31.  c.  14.     Paolo,  2.  446. 

*  Nuptiarum  castum  vinculunj  honoramus.  Crabb.  1.  291.  Si  quis  discernit  de 
obligationibus  non  comununicans,  quas  presbyter  celebraverit  conjugatus,  anathema 
sit.  Labb.  2.  438.  Bin.  4.  453.  Socrat.  II.  43.  Du  Pin,  1.  612. 

3  IIoWicH.  yap  fovfuv  sv  it*  xaipw  t^  srtt,axortr]$  XOA  rta^aj  tx  *rj$  to/uanpf 
ya/itf>75  TtfrtoMfxacw.  Socrat.  V.  22.  Gratian,  D.  31.  Pith.  41.  Niceph.  XII.  34. 
Labb.  1.  26. 


544  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    ?OPERY  : 

The  obligation  of  a  single  life  was  introduced  into  these  regions 
by  Heliodorus  of  Tricca.1  This  bishop,  in  his  youthful  days, 
had  composed  a  work  called  Ethiopics,  which,  says  Socrates 
and  Nicephorus,  proscribed  the  marriage  of  the  clergy  in  the 
diocese  under  his  superintendence. 

A  second  step  in  the  progress  of  sacerdotal  celibacy  among 
the  Greeks,  consisted  in  the  interdiction  of  matrimony  after 
ordination.  The  Grecian  clergy  were  allowed  to  cohabit  with 
the  women  whom  they  had  married  while  laymen  ;  but  not  to 
enter  on  the  nuptial  engagement  after  ordination.  The  council 
of  Ancyra  about  315,  in  its  tenth  canon,  allowed  only  those 
deacons  to  marry,  who,  at  their  ordination,  should  declare  their 
constitutional  incapacity  for  abstinence.  The  ministers  of  the 
altar,  according  to  Gratian,  were,  when  this  assembly  as  well 
as  that  of  Gangra  met,  free  to  marry.2  The  continence  of 
ecclesiastics  had  not,  at  that  time,  been  introduced  into  Chris- 
tendom. The  council  of  Neocaesarea,  indeed,  about  this  period, 
ordered  the  priest,  who  should  form  the  conjugal  contract  after 
ordination,  to  be  deposed.  But  this  was  only  a  small  provincial 
synod,  unnoticed  and  unratified  by  any  ensuing  council  or 
pontiff'  till  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century.  The  general  Nicene 
council,  in  its  third  canon,  forbad  unmarried  ecclesiastics  to 
have  any  women  in  their  houses  except  a  mother,  a  sister,  or 
an  aunt.  This  canon,  as  the  words  show,  was  directed  against 
a  kind  of  women,  who,  as  domestics,  infested  the  habitations 
of  the  unmarried  clergy. 

The  Nicene  council  was  near  passing  a  new  law,  forbidding 
bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  to  sleep  with  the  women,  whom 
they  had  married  before  their  taking  of  holy  orders.  This  at- 
tempt, however,  was  crushed  by  Paphnutius  of  Thebais  ;  a 
man,  who,  according  to  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  was  loved  of 
God  and  had  wrought  many  miracles.  He  had  been  a  confes- 
sor in  Maximin's  persecution,  in  which,  having  lost  an  eye  and 
a  leg,  he  was  condemned  to  the  mines.  He  had  led  a  life  of 
celibacy,  but  opposed  the  enactment  of  this  innovation. 
Marriage,  said  the  confessor  with  a  loud  voice,  '  is  honourable 
in  all,  and  the  use  of  the  nuptial  bed  is  chastity  itself.  Such 
excess  of  abstinence  would  be  detrimental  to  the  church,  and 
might,  by  its  rigour  in  imposing  too  weight}''  a  burden,  become 

*  Socrat.  V.  22.     Niceph.  XII.  34.     Mendoza,  II.  66. 

«  Graeci  utuntur  uxoribus  cum  quibus  ante  sacrosordinescontraxerunt.  Canisius. 
4.  433. 

Quicumque  diaconi  constituti,  in  ipsa  constitutione  dixerunt,  oportere  se  uxores 
ducere,  cum  non  possintsic  manere,  ii,  si  uxorem  postea  duxerint,  sint  in  miuiste- 
rio.  Labb.  1.  1490.  Pithou,  38.  Du  Pin,  1.  598.  Nondum  erat  introducti 
coutinentia  ministrorum  altaris.  Gratian,  Dist.  28.  c.  13.  Pithou,  41.  Crabb.  1 
201.  Bell.  I.  19. 


PROGRESS     OP    CELIBACY    IN    THE    EAST.  545 

fatal  to  the  chastity  of  man  and  women.  Allow  the  clergy, 
according  to  the  ancient  tradition,  to  enjoy  the  wives  which 
they  married  before  their  entrance  on  the  priesthood,  and  the 
unmarried  after  ordination  to  remain  in  celibacy.'  The  council 
assented,  '  and  extolled  the  wisdom  of  his  speech.'1 

The  speech  of  Paphnutius,  and  the  concurrence  of  the  coun- 
cil, supply  an  answer  to  an  unfounded  criticism  of  Chalienor. 
He  accuses  the  Protestant  translation  of  straining  the  words  of 
Paul,  when  he  represented  marriage  as  honourable  in  all.  The 
word,  which  unites  marriage  to  the  epithet  honourable,  is 
omitted  in  the  original,  which,  according  to  Chalienor,  is  not 
indicative  but  imperative,  and  should  be  rendered,  'Let  mar- 
riage be  honourable  in  all.'  The  English  version,  however, 
agrees  with  the  Egyptian  confessor  and  the  Nicene  council  in 
all  its  infallibility.  Paphnutius,  like  Luther,  Calvin,  Cranmer, 
or  Knox,  used  the  apostolic  expression  in  the  reformed  accep- 
tation, and  the  Nicene  fathers  acclaimed.  A  host  of  Romish 
saints  might  be  mustered,  who  took  the  words  in  the  same  sense, 
and  applied  them  in  the  same  manner.  Chalienor  has  at- 
tempted several  criticisms  of  a  similar  kind,  which  argue  little 
for  his  learning  or  his  honesty. 

Baronius,  Bellarmine,  Valesius,  Thomassin,  and  Turnano 
have  endeavoured  to  overthrow  the  truth  of  this  relation.  The 
attempt,  however,  is  vain.  These  cavillers  could  adduce  no 
reason,  possessing  any  validity,  to  countenance  their  insinuation. 
The  relation  is  supported  by  the  testimony,  not  only  of  Socrates 
and  Sozomen,  but  also  of  Nicephorus,  Suidas,  Ivo,  Cassiodorus, 
Gratian,  and  Gelasius.  The  fact  is  admitted  in  modern  times, 
by  Mendoza,  Du  Pin,  and  Moreri.  Mendoza  wonders  at  the 
scepticism  and  hostility  of  Turriano ;  and  shows,  with  the 
utmost  perspicuity,  not  only  the  truth  of  the  statement,  but  also 
the  liberty  of  the  oriental  clergy,  who,  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene 
council,  were  untrammelled  by  the  vows  of  chastity,  and,  like 
the  laity,  were  allowed  to  enjoy  the  consorts  whom  they  had 
married  prior  to  their  assumption  of  the  sacred  office.  Du  Pin, 
in  his  usual  candor,  represents  the  opposition  to  the  account  as 
arising  from  the  fear  of  prejudicing  the  present  discipline  rather 
than  from  any  solid  proof.  Baronius,  says  Moreri,  controverts, 
the  truth  of  the  history,  but  without  foundation,  as  the  law  of 
celibacy  had,  at  that  era,  obtained  no  universal  establishment 
in  the  Eastern  communion.2 

1  Ttjiuov  Eivcu.  xai  -ty\v  atonal/  xat  avfov  atiuwfov  *ov  yauov  Xsycov.  Socrat.  I 
11.  Soznm.  1.  23  Labb.  1233.  Pithou,  42. 

3  Semper  in  oriente,  en  impuuitas  et  licentia  permissa  fuerit.  Uxores  anteaduc- 
tas  domi  retinebont,  et  liberis  tanquam  seculares  operam  dabant.  Mendoza.  II. 
66.  Barouius  et  quelques  autres  auteurs  ont  voulu  coatester  la  verite  do  cette 

35 


646  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

The  testimony  of  Epiphanius  and  Jerome  has  been  contrasted, 
with  the  relation  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen.  The  ecclesiastical 
canons,  says  Epiphanius,  enjoined  celibacy  on  bishop,  priest, 
deacon,  and  subdeacon.  Some  of  the  clergy,  he  admits,  even 
in  his  day,  violated  the  laws  of  abstinence.  But  this  violation, 
the  saint  contends,  was  an  infraction  of  the  canons,  and  arose 
from  the  licentiousness  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  connivance 
or  neglect  of  the  people.1 

But  the  authority  of  Epiphanius  is  unavailing  against  that  of 
Socrates  and  Sozomen.  View  his  character  as  an  historian  and 
a  logician,  drawn  by  Photius,  Du  Pin,  Moreri,  and  Alexander. 
Photius  represents  Epiphanius  as  weak  in  his  arguments  against 
impious  heresy.  Du  Pin  characterizes  the  saint  as  void  of 
judgment,  and  full  of  credulity.  He  credited  false  records  and 
uncertain  reports,  and,  in  consequence,  is  often  deceived  in  his- 
tory. Moreri  follows  in  the  train  of  Du  Pin,  and  draws  a 
similar  portrait.  Alexander,  if  possible,  loads  the  canvass  with 
still  darker  colours.  The  Sorbonnist  describes  the  saint,  '  as 
very  often  mistaken  in  history  and  chronology  :  and  in  many 
instances  wandering  entirely  from  truth.'2 

His  statement,  on  the  topic  of  priestly  celibacy,  contains  one 
of  his  gross  mistakes.  He  extends  the  prohibition  of  matrimony 
to  the  subdeacon.  But  Jerome,  his  cotemporary,  extends  it  only 
to  the  deacon  ;  and  Leo,  who  flourished  half  a  century  after 
Epiphanius,  was  the  first,  who,  according  to  the  uniform  testi- 
mony of  history,  comprehended  subdeacons  under  the  interdic- 
tion. This,  Thomassin,  Pithou,  Bruys,  and  Du  Pin  have  ad- 
mitted and  indeed  proved.  Siricius  and  Innocent,  as  well  as 
Ferrand  and  Cresconius  in  their  compilations,  impose  the  obli- 
gation of  abstinence  only  on  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons.  Leo, 
besides,  on  this  topic,  was  not  obeyed.  Subdeacons,  in  his 
papacy,  were  allowed  to  marry  even  in  suburban  Sicily,  and  to 
enjoy  connubial  society.  The  fifth  Carthaginian  council  in  438 
exacted  abstinence  only  from  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  ;  but 
left  the  rest  of  the  clergy,  on  this  point,  at  liberty.  Gregory 
was  the  first  who  enforced  the  celibacy  of  subdeacons  :  and 
even  his  enactments  had  no  retrospective  effect ;  but  related 
merely  to  such  as  should  be  afterward  ordained.3  Epiphanius, 

histoire;  mais  sans  aucun  fondement.  Moreri,  7.  42.  Spon.  325.  XL.  Bell.  I 
20.  Thorn.  1.  23.  Socrat.  I.  11.  Sozomen,  I.  23.  Du  Pin,  1.  600. 

1  Epiph.  1.  490.  et  2.  1104.     Godeau,  1.  602. 

8  In  historia  et  chronologia,  saepissime  lapsus  est.  Ab  historica  veritate  toto 
co3lo  aberrat.  Alex.  7.  630.  Photius,  304.  Codex,  122.  Du  Pin,  1.298.  Mo- 
reri, 3.  94. 

3  Le  pape  (Leon)  est  le  premier  qui  ait  etendu  la  loi  du  celibat  aux  sous-diacres. 
Bruy,  1.  221.  Thorn.  1.  138,  140.  Caeteros  clericos  ad  hoc  non  cogi.  Crabb.  1. 
446.  Pithou,  41,  43.  Du  Pin,  1.  571. 

Licet  adulter  sit  licet  sodomita,  licet  flagitiis  omnibus  coopertus.     Jerom,  ad 


ABSURD    EULOGIES    OF    THE    VIRGIN    MARY.  547 

therefore,  is,  in  tnis  instance,  convicted  of  falsehood,  and  there- 
fore is  unworthy  of  credit  in  the  rest  of  his  evidence. 

Epiphanius  is  guilty  of  another  egregious  blunder  on  the  sub- 
ject of  matrimony  .  The  person,  said  he,  who  has  obtained  a 
divorce  for  adultery,  fornication,  or  any  other  crime,  and  has 
married  another,  is,  according  to  scriptural  authority,  free  from 
sin,  and  worthy  of  ecclesiastical  communion  and  eternal  life. 
This  is  in  direct  opposition  to  Augustine,  Jernrne,  the  canon 
law,  and  the  council  of  Trent;  and  exposes  its  author  to  all  the 
tremendous  fulminations  of  the  Trentine  anathemas.  The  canon 
law  and  the  council  of  Trent  in  its  twenty-fourth  session,  teach 
the  indissolubility  of  marriage,  even  on  account  of  heresy, 
infirmity,  malevolence,  desertion,  fornication,  adultery,  sodomy, 
or  any  other  atrocity  ;  and  pronounces  shocking  execrations 
against  all  who  gainsay.  The  nuptial  chain,  according  to  that 
celebrated  assembly,  can  be  dissolved  only  by  death  ;  and  the 
innocent  party,  even  in  case  of  adultery,  must  forego  all  further 
matrimonial  engagements  during  the  life  of  the  guilty.  Epi- 
phanius, therefore,  was  both  worshipped  and  execrated  by  the 
good  fathers  of  Trent.  He  is  exalted  to  glory  and  consigned 
to  Satan  by  the  same  communion.  He  is  a  saint,  and  as  such, 
is  invoked.  He  is  a  heretic,  and  as  such,  is  anathematized. 
His  saintship,  in  this  manner,  enjoys  all  the  charms  of  variety. 
He  has  the  pleasure  of  being  alternately  in  heaven  and  hell  ; 
and  the  satisfaction  of  being  blessed  and  cursed,  adored  and 
anathematized,  by  an  infallible  church  and  council. 

Epiphanius,  therefore  in  two  instances,  stands  convicted  of 
misrepresentation.  His  testimony,  in  consequence,  deserves  no 
credit.  His  mental  imbecility,  besides,  which  approximated  to 
idiotisrn,  proclaims,  saint  as  he  was,  the  inadequacy  of  his 
evidence  even  in  a  matter^of  fact.  One  specimen  of  his  weak- 
ness, taken  from  his  eulogy  on  Lady  Mary,  is  worthy  of  atten^ 
tion,  as  illustrating  the  intensity  of  his  silliness  ;  though,  on  the 
score  of  its  indecency  and  profanity,  it  must  be  left  in  its 
original  language.1 

Bernard's  imitation  of  Epiphanius  is  worth  a  digression,  and 
will  form  a  suitable  episode.  Bernard  addresses  Lady  Mary 
in  the  following  sensible  and  beautiful  style  ;  —  "  O  firmament, 
firmer  than  all  firmaments.  Him,  whom  the  heavens  of  heavens 
could  not  contain,  you,  O  lady,  contained,  conceived,  begot, 

Amand.  4.  162.  Epiph.  1.  497.  Augustin,  6.  40G.  Pithou,  389.  Gibert,  3.  407. 
Bin.  9.  411. 


1  To  atSTtfoov  7tpo,3ctTov,  ^  fov  apvov  -ftxuau  X.-Htffov,  r;  6a,uaMj  ^ 
9}  -for  fm%Qi>  yfvj'^crarta  .  .  .  XatpE  Ttavayia  rta,rtpvf,  rj  to  Tt'-p  tyf  Osotyf  o$  afytex- 
f  wj  wf  vospa  j3aro£  sea-TE^scra  .  .  .  Tov  E/tyiaj/oi^Tu^X,  fv  a^Saprw  xoiXia$>Fpov(j» 
«$  yatfi'spa  a,lu.oKvvtov  .....  ii  yafff^p  aftaiKvvfof  ovpavov  xvxhov  e%xoa.xai  &eov 
a^wp^fov,  fv  <joi  8s  ^cop^t'ov  j3owf  affacra.  ii  ya<r?  ijp  ovpavov  rtXarvff  pa,  &sov  1*0? 
tv  aot  w  attv^x^pn^oa,.  Epiph.  de  Laud.  2,  294,  295,  296,  297. 


548  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

fed,  suckled,  and  educated.  Thou,  in  the  midst  of  the  waters 
dividedst  the  waters  from  the  waters.  The  light  of  your  eyes 
dispels  darkness,  expels  squadrons  of  devils,  purifies  the  vices 
of  the  mind,  and  warms  the  coldness  of  the  heart.  Happy,  O 
lady,  are  they  whom  your  eyes  behold.  Turn,  there  lore,  O 
lady,  those  eyes  to  us,  and  show  us,  *  *  *  *  [here  we  must 
again  refer  the  reader  to  the  original,  which  he  will  rind  in  the 
note.1]  O  elevation  of  minds,  intoxication  of  hearts,  and  salva- 
tion of  sinners  !  O  lady,  gentle  in  consoling,  mild  in  soothing; 
and  sweet  in  kissing.' 

His  saintship,  in  the  same  elegant  and  edifying  style,  calls 
her  ladyship,  heaven,  earth,  pasture,  paradise,  bread,  drink, 
manna,  oil,  wine,  cinnamon,  balm,  myrrh,  frankincense,  olive, 
spikenard,  saffron,  gum,  a  temple,  a  house,  a  bed-room,  a  bride, 
a  lamp,  a  trumpet,  a  mountain,  a  wilderness,  a  field,  a  vine,  a 
floor,  a  barn,  a  stable,  a  manger,  a  warehouse,  a  hall,  a  tower, 
a  camp,  an  army,  a  kingdom,  a  priesthood,  a  bird,  a  palm,  a 
rose,  a  river,  a  pigeon,  a  garment,  a  pearl,  a  candlestick,  a 
table,  a  crown,  a  sceptre,  a  tree,  a  cedar,  a  cypress,  a  reed, 
a  daughter,  a  sister,  a  mother,  a  sun,  a  moon,  a  star,  the  city 
of  God,  the  rod  of  Aaron,  the  fleece  of  Gideon,  the  gate  of 
Ezekiel,  the  star  of  the  morning,  the  fountain  of  gardens,  the 
lily  of  the  valley,  and  the  land  of  promise  flowing  with  milk 
and  honey. 

Such  are  a  few  extracts  from  the  balderdash  and  blasphemy 
of  two  full-length  Roman  saints,  one  of  whom,  Bellannine, 
Valesius,  Thomassin,  and  Turriano  bring  as  a  witness  for  the 
perpetual  celibacy  of  the  Grecian  clergy.  His  saintship  of 
Salamis,  as  well  as  of  Clairvaux,  certainly  qualified  himself  for 
the  presidency  of  fools,  and  fairly  carried  off  the  palm  of  non- 
sense from  Montanus,  Swedenborg,  and  Southcott.  This, 
notwithstanding,  is  the  man  whom  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  in 
their  menology  and  martyrology,  celebrate  every  year  as  an 
illustrious  confessor. 

Jerome  has  been  summoned  as  another  witness  for  the  perpe- 
tual celibacy  of  the  Grecian  clergy.  Jerome's  testimony,  how- 
ever, clashes  with  that  of  Epiphanius.  Epiphanius  alleges  the 

1  Omnibus  firmamentis  firmius  firmamentum,  tu,  Domina,  quae  enm  quern  cceli 
coelorum  capere  non  poterant,  cepisti,  et  concepisti,  genuisti,  nluisti,  pavisti,  mam- 
masti,  et  educasti.  Tu,  in  medio  aquarum,  divisisti  aquas  nb  aquis.  Senn.  III. 
Snorum  chari^as  oculorum  tenebras  expellit,  et  effugat  catervas  Davmonum,  purgat 
vitia  mentium,  corda  congelata  accendit.  O  quam  beati,  O  domina,  quos  tui  vide- 
rent  ocnli.  Hos  ergo  oculos  ad  nos,  domina,  converte  et  Jesum  beuedictum  fruc- 
tum  ventris  tui  nobis  ostende.  O  venter  mirabilis,  qui  potuit  capere  sal  valorem. 
O  venter  laudabilis,  qui  potuit  recipere  redemptorem.  O  venter  desiderabilis,  e 
quo  emanavit  desiderium  mentium,  gratiarum  fluviua,  gloria?  pracmium.  O  venter 
atnabilis  et  dulcedo  am* ma?.  O  elevatio  mentium,  inebriate  cordium,  sanitns  peo 
catorum.  0  clemens  consolando,  pia  blaudiaudo,  dulcis  osculaiido!  Bernard, 
Scrm.  IV.  p  1739,  1740,  1747. 


SUICIDE    OF    VIRGINS    COMMENDED. 

authority  of  ecclesiastical  canons  in  favour  of  clerical  continence. 
Jerome,  on  the  contrary,  refers  merely  to  the  usage  of  bis  day. 
Epiphanius  extends  the  prohibition  to  subdeacons.  Jerome 
comprehends  in  the  interdiction  only  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons.1 These  contradictions  destroy  the  evidence  of  both  the/ 
bishop  of  Salamis  and  the  monk  of  Palestine. 

Jerome's  bias  in  favour  of  virginity  led  the  saint  into  error 
which  degraded  his  character  and  lessened  his  authority.  His 
declamation  against  wedlock,  in  his  refutation  cf  Jovinian,  in- 
curred the  disapprobation  of  many ;  and,  among  the  rest,  of 
Pope  Siricius.  The  murmur  was  so  great  that  Pamachius  his 
friend  endeavoured,  though  in  vain,  to  suppress  his  writings  on 
this  subject.  He  was  accused  of  countenancing  the  Manicheans, 
who,  at  least  to  the  elect,  entirely  proscribed  matrimony.  He 
was  obliged,  in  consequence,  to  write  an  apology.  He  con- 
fessed that  on  this  subject,  he  had  indulged  in  declamation. 
His  prepossessions,  on  this  topic,  induced  him  to  reflect  on  the 
conjugal  duty  even  in  the  laity.  The  layman,  says  the  saint 
of  Palestine,  '  cannot  pray,  who  indulges  in  nuptial  enjoyments. 
The  person,  he  adds,  who  fulfils  the  duty  of  a  husband,  cannot 
fiulfil  that  of  a  Christian.'2  His  language  is  a  libel  on  the 
divine  institution,  which,  in  the  popish  system,  is  a  sacrament. 

Jerome's  prejudices  in  behalf  of  virginity  caused  his  approba- 
tion of  suicide  and  assassination.  Many  instances  might  be 
produced,  arid,  as  a  specimen,  those  of  the  Baeotian,  Milesian, 
and  Theban  virgins.  Two  young  men,  flushed  with  wine,  had, 
during  the  night,  violated  the  Baeotian  maids,  who,  unwilling  to 
survive  their  virginity,  fell  by  mutual  wounds.3  Jerome,  on  the 
occasion,  is  at  a  loss  for  expression  in  favour  of  the  shocking 
action.  He  seems  to  labour  for  language  to  utter  his  admira- 
tion of  the  suicidal  deed. 

The  Milesian  maids  were  still  more  blameworthy.  These, 
lest,  on  the  invasion  and  devastations  of  the  Gauls,  they  should 
undergo  any  indecency  from  the  enemy,  escaped  from  defile- 
ment by  death.  The  heroines,  says  Jerome,  '  left  an  example 
to  all  virgins  of  honorable  minds  to  prefer  chastity  to  life.'4  The 
suicide,  in  all  its  enormity,  challenged  the  unqualified  approba- 
tion of  the  Roman  saint. 

A  Theban  girl,  whom  a  Macedonian  had  deflowered,  dissem- 

1  Epiph.  Haer.  59.     Thorn.  1.  135,  136.     Jerom,  ad  vig. 

8  Plusieurs  entre  les  Catholiques  furent  offensez  de  quelquesendroits  troprudea. 
Le  Pape  meme  en  eut  quelque  mauvaise  opinion.  Godea.  2.  581.  Moreri,  5.  99. 

Rhetoricati  sumns  et  in  morem  declamatorum  paululura  lusimus.  Jerom.  4.  143. 
Laicus  et  quicumque  fidelis  orare  non  potest,  nisi  careatofficio  conjugali  Quamdiu 
irapleo  mariti  officium,  non  impleo  Christiani.  Jerom.  adv.  Jovinian.  Pithou,  42. 

3  Quo  ore  laudandas  sunt  Scedasi  filial.     Jerome,  4.  186.     Moreri,  7.  159. 

4  Turpitudinem  morte  fugcrunt,  exemplum  sui  cunctis  virginibus  relinquentes. 
Jerome,  4.  186.     Lopex,  III.  3. 


050  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

bled  her  grief,  and  afterward  cut  the  violator's  throat  when  he 
was  sleeping ;  and  then  slew  herself  with  his  sword.1  The 
murder  and  self-assassination  became  a  theme  of  exultation  to 
Jerome. 

Ambrosius,  who  is  often  associated  with  Jerome  as  a  witness 
of  sacerdotal  celibacy,  recommended  the  same  impiety  of  sui- 
cide. Pelagia  of  Antioch,  during  Maximin's  persecution  in  the 
fourth  century,  with  her  mother  and  sisters,  lest  they  should 
suffer  violation,  escaped  by  a  voluntary  death.  Pelagia,  adorned 
not  like  a  person  going  to  death  but  to  a  wedding,  leaped,  as 
she  was  inspired  of  God,  from  a  lofty  window  on  the  pavement, 
and  by  her  fall,  says  Godeau,  mounted  to  heaven.  Her  mother 
and  sisters,  says  the  same  historian,  jumped  into  a  deep  river, 
where  they  found  a  baptism  which  purified  them  from  every 
stain.  The  water,  concealing  their  bodies,  respected  the  brides 
and  martyrs  of  its  Creator.  Marcellina  asked  the  opinion  of 
Arabrosius  on  this  melancholy  but  unwarranted  action.  The 
bishops  eulogized  the  dreadful  deed  as  a  duty  owed  to  religion, 
a  remedy  inoffensive  to  God,  and  an  achievement  which  enti- 
tled these  virgins  to  the  crown  of  martyrdom.2 

These  are  the  men,  who  are  invoked  as  Gods  in  the  Romish 
communion,  and  whose  festivals  and  fulsome  encomiums  are 
registered  with  ostentation  in  the  Romish  missal,  processional, 
and  breviary.  The  holy  Jerome,  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  Sep- 
tember, is  designated  as  'the  light  of  the  church,  the  lover  of 
the  divine  law,  the  greatest  doctor  in  scriptural  explanation, 
who  despised  this  world  and  merited  the  celestial  kingdom, 
and  whom  God  loved  and  clothed  with  the  robe  of  glory.  His 
mediation  and  intercession  are  devoutly  supplicated,  that  men, 
through  the  blessed  saint's  merits,  may  be  enabled  to  perform 
what  he  taught  in  word  and  deed.'3  This,  of  course,  is  a  peti- 
tion in  favour  of  self-assassination,  which  holy  Jerome  recom- 
mended. The  faithful,  on  this  festival  pray  that  they  may, 
through  the  monk's  merits,  be  enabled  to  murder  themselves. 
This  is  very  well  for  an  infallible  church. 

Ambrosius  is  invoked  with  similar  impiety  and  idolatry.  The 
Lord,  if  the  Missal  may  be  credited,  'filled  the  saint  with  tne 
spirit  of  wisdom,  and  clothed  him  with  the  robe  of  glory.' 
The  sacred  oblation  is  offered  in  his  honour,  and  the  people  of 

1  Nic  vivere  voluerat  perditam  castitatem,  nee  ante  mori  quam  sui  ultrix  existe- 
ret.  Jerome,  4.  186.  Lopez,  III.  3. 

3  Deus  remedio  non  offenditur.  Martyres  reddit.  Religion!  debitum  solverat 
Amb.  4.  478,  479.  Euseb.  VIII.  23.  Godea.  2.  65. 

3  O  doctor  optime,  ecclesise  sanctae  lumen.  Beate  Hieronime,  Divince  legia 
amntor.  Praesta,  quEesumus,  ut  ejus  suflfragantibus  meritis,  quod  ore  simul  et  opere 
docuit,  te  adjuvante  exercere  volumus.  Miss.  Rom.  503.  Process.  Rom.  37ft. 
Brev-  Rom.  1013. 


SUICIDE    OF    VIRGINS    COMMENDED.  551 

God.  on  the  seventh  of  December,  addressing  the  bishop  of 
Milan,  *  as  the  minister  of  eternal  salvation  on  earth,  pray  for 
everlasting  glory  through  his  intercession  in  heaven.71  One 
part  of  the  salvation  which  he  recommended  on  earth,  consists 
in  self-murder.  He  must,  therefore,  be  a  hopeful  mediator  in 
heaven. 

Men,  biased  and  mistaken  in  this  manner,  could  not  be  im- 
partial witnesses.  These,  so  prejudiced  in  favour  of  a  system 
as  to  recommend  suicide  to  preserve  virginity,  or  murder  to 
revenge  violated  chastity,  could  not  deliver  a  fair  or  candid 
testimony.  The  report  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  respecting 
the  speech  of  Paphnutius  and  the  decision  of  the  Nicean 
council,  remains  unattainted.  The  fact  is  embodied  in  the 
Theodosian  code  and  in  the  cr»non  law :  and  has,  at  the  present 
day,  obtained  general  belief.2 

The  Trullan  or  Quinsextan  council,  in  692,  seems  to  have 
put  the  finishing  hand  to  the  matrimonial  regulations  of  the 
Grecian  clergy.  This  assembly,  in  its  twelfth  canon,  enjoined 
celibacy  on  bishops.  But  the  inferior  clergy  were  permitted  to 
marry  before  ordination,  and  afterward  to  enjoy  connubial 
society. 

The  Greeks,  differing  in  this  manner  from  the  Latins,  in- 
veighed against  the  Western  discipline  as  contrary  to  Scriptural, 
traditional,  and  synodal  authority  ;  and  used,  on  the  occasion, 
very  free  and  strong  language.  The  latter,  notwithstanding, 
remained  for  many  ages  in  the  communion  of  the  former, 
without  any  apparent  reluctance.  The  Latins,  says  Thomassin, 
suffered  the  incontinence  of  the  Greeks  with  patience  and 
charity;  while  the  Greeks,  on  the  contrary,  could  not  suffer 
the  strict  purity  of  the  Latins.3  The  strict  purity  of  the  Latins, 
as  will  soon  appear,  consisted  in  fornication,  adultery,  incest, 
and  every  filthiness. 

The  Greeks,  in  these  regulations,  were,  in  general,  joined  by 
the  other  Eastern  denominations.  The  Syrians  adopted  a 
similar  usage.  The  Armenian  and  Georgian  ecclesiastics,  says 
Brocard,  are  all  married.4  The  Western  interdiction  of  clerical 
matrimony,  therefore,  was  a  variation  from  oriental  liberty. 

Such  is  the  history  of  sacerdotal  celibacy  among  the  Greeks. 

1  Implevit  eum  dominus  spiritu  sapientiae,  stolam  gloriae  induit   eura.     Deus, 
qui  populo  tuo  aeternae  salutis  Beatum  Ambrosium  ministrum   tribuisti,  praesta- 
quaesumus,  ut  quern  doctorem  vitse    habuimus   in   terris,   intercessorem  habere 
mereamur  in  coelis.     Miss.  Rom.  348.     Process.  Rom.  247.     Brev.  Rom.  699. 

2  Cod.  Theod.  XVI.     Pithou,  42. 

3  Les  Grecs  ne  pouvoient  suffrir  i'exacte  purete  des  Latins.     Thorn.  I.  28.  Part. 
II      Da  Pin,  2.  24.     Bell.  1.  1109. 

4  Sacerdotes  et  diaconi  utuntur  uxoribus,  cum  quibus  ante  sacros  ordines  con- 
traxenut.     Ganisius,  4.  433.     Sacerdotes  omnes  sunt  uxorati.     Brocard,  in  Cani- 
eius,  4.  25. 


THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  . 

But  the  Latins  on  this  subject,  varying  from  the  Greeks,  used 
greater  rigor,  and  enjoined  perpetual  continence  on  all  orders 
of  the  clergy.  This  enactment,  however,  was  an  innovation  of 
the  fourth  century.  No  law  of  the  kind  is  found  in  any  of  the 
earlier  monuments  of  antiquity.  Many  documents,  on  the  con- 
trary, remain,  which,  as  has  been  shown,  testify  the  freedom  of 
the  clergy  on  this  topic  in  primitive  times.  Jerome,  who. 
flourished  in  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  is  the  earliest  witness 
for  clerical  abstinence  in  the  Western  communion,  who  could  be 
produced  by  all  the  learning  of  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  and 
Thomassin.  This  was  about  four  hundred  years  alter  the 
Christian  era.  Had  any  law  of  celibacy  been  in  use  in  the  early 
days  of  antiquity,  some  monument  of  the  kind,  one  might  expect, 
would  indicate  its  former  existence.  Jerome,  besides,  from  his 
prepossessions  against  wedlock,  was  a  partial  witness.  Suicide, 
which,  according  to  Jerome,  is  a  sin  to  be  deprecated  in  any 
other  case,  is  lawful  for  the  preservation  of  chastity.  The  testi- 
mony of  such  a  prejudiced  evidence  is  utterly  inadmissible. 
Thomassin  admits  that  in  the  primitive  church,  there  was  no 
law  of  celibacy  or  penalty  against  marriage  ;  though  he  main- 
tains that  charity  enforced  abstinence  on  the  clergy  of  antiquity. 
A  time  was,  says  Gratian,  when  there  was  no  institution  enjoin- 
ing the  continence  of  the  clergy.1 

The  decretal  of  pope  Siricius,  addressed  in  385  to  Himerius, 
contains  the  first  general  interdiction  of  clerical  matrimony. 
Its  priority,  as  a  general  prohibition,  is  acknowledged  by  Clithou 
as  well  as  by  Bruys,  Espensaeus,  Cassander,  and  many  other 
patrons  of  popery.2  No  authority  of  an  earlier  date  can  be 
produced  for  the  enactment.  Siricius  pleads  no  Christian 
canon,  but  merely  an  old  Jewish  regulation.  The  Spanish 
council  of  Elvira,  indeed,  in  the  year  300,  issued  its  twenty- 
third  canon  to  this  effect.  Gibert,  in  the  canon  law,  allows 
this  regulation  the  priority  as  an  injunction  of  sacerdotal 
continence.  The  Elviran  canon,  indeed,  in  its  grammatical 
construction,  contains  a  prohibition  of  abstinence.  The  whole 
ministry  were  commanded  by  a  Spanish  council  to  exercise 
without  interruption  their  powers  of  reproduction.8  No  suspen- 
sion of  the  task  was  permitted  by  the  sacred  synod,  who  would 
allow  no  cessation  of  arms  on  pain  of  expulsion  from  the 

*  Non  licet  propria  perire  manu,  absque  eo  ubi  castitas  periclitatur.  Jerom.  in 
Jon.  3.  1478.  La  seule  charite  avoit  fait  observer.  Thomassiu,  1.  140.  Gratian, 
D.  21.  Pithou,  41. 

8  A  Siricio  Papa  primum  editum.  Clithou,  c.  4.  in  Bell.  I.  18.  II  ose  bien  faire 
des  nouvelles  loix.  Je  parle  du  celibat  des  ecclesiastiques.  Bruy.  1.  142. 

3  Haec  prohibitio  primum  facta  est  a  concilio  Eliberitano.  Gibert,  2.  312. 
Crabb.  1.  417  Du  Pin,  1.  235.  Placet,  in  totum  prohiberi  episcopis,  presbyleris, 
diacouis,  abstinere  Be  a  conjugibus  suis  et  non  generare  filios.  Labb.  1,  996,  1020 
Pithou,  102. 


DOMESTICISM.  553 

honours  of  the  priesthood.  This  is  the  literal  and  verbal  mean- 
ing of  the  words  ;  but  was  not,  it  is  likely,  the  design  of  the 
compilers.  The  blundering  authors,  in  all  probability,  expressed 
a  sense  directly  contrary  to  their  intention. 

The  Elviran  synod  seems,  in  every  respect,  to  have  been  ex- 
ceedingly silly.  The  sage  prelacy,  in  the  thirty-fourth  canon, 
forbid  the  lighting  of  wax-candles  in  grave-yards  during  the 
day,  lest  the  souls  of  the  saints  should  be  disquieted.1  The 
light  or  the  smell  of  the  tapers  might  have  frightened  the  unfor- 
tunate ghosts  which  hovered  over  the  tombs.  The  body  of  men, 
who  could,  in  solemn  council,  enact  such  a  law,  must  have  been 
beneath  contempt. 

The  council  of  Elvira,  as  it  was  despicable,  was  also  partial, 
and  differed,  in  this  respect,  from  the  bull  of  Siricius  which  was 

feneral.  The  Elviran  canon,  at  most,  was  national  and  con- 
ned to  Spain.  The  pontifical  edict  was  general  and  extended 
to  Christendom,  or,  at  least,  to  the  Latin  communion.  The 
Elviran  enactment  was  evaded  by  the  Spanish  clergy,  and  unra- 
tified  by  any  pope  or  council.  The  papal  decision  was  enforced 
with  rigour,  and  confirmed  by  the  sanctions  of  Innocent,  Leo, 
and  Gregory,  as  well  as  by  the  councils  of  Carthage,  Orleans, 
Tours,  Toledo,  Aix  la  Chapelle,  Worms,  and  Mentz,  in  Africa, 
France,  Spain,  and  Germany. 

The  law  ran  counter  to  the  tide  of  human  nature,  and  to  the 
stream  of  human  affection.  The  clergy,  in  many  instances, 
resisted  the  mandate  ;  and  the  exaction  of  obedience,  in  conse- 
quence, became  a  diffcult  task.  A  variety  of  plans  was  inven- 
ted to  evade  or  violate  its  severity.  One  variety  of  evasion 
consisted  in  DOMESTICISM.  A  second  party  engaged  in  open 
or  concealed  concubinage.  Many  displayed  a  third  variety, 
and  in  bold  violation  of  unjust  and  unscriptural  canons,  married, 
and  lived,  not  indeed  in  abstinence  but  in  chastity,  with  their 
lawful  wives. 

Many  of  the  clergy  had  recourse  in  this  extremity,  to  domes- 
ticism.  This  consisted  in  keeping  female  inmates  in  their  dwell- 
ings. These  were  women  devoted  in  profession,  though  not 
by  vow,  to  virginity.  Their  ostensible  duty  was  to  superintend 
the  domestic  concerns  of  the  house.  The  clergy  enjoyed  their 
society ;  while  these  maidens,  in  return,  shared  the  clergy's 
bed  and  board.  Cyprian,  Jerome,  and  Chrysostom  have 
depicted  the  cohabitation  of  these  holy  domestics  with  a  bold 
but  faithful  pencil.  Cyprian  mentions,  in  language  of  strong 
condemnation,  their  domestic  familiarity  by  day,  and  their 
occupation  of  the  same  bed  during  the  night.  Jerome  imitates 
the  description  of  Cyprian ;  but  gives  more  poignancy  to  his 

1  Inquietandi  sanctorum  spiritus  non  sunt.     Bin.  1.  235. 


554  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY: 

style  and  relievo  to  his  colours.  These  holy  men  and  women, 
if  the  saint's  statement  may  be  credited,  occupied  the  same 
house,  the  same  chamber,  and  the  same  *  nightly  couch.'1  An 
ecclesiastic  would  admit  one  of  these  fair  saints  to  the  partici- 
pation of  his  bed  ;  but  under  solemn  declarations  of  the  strictest 
chastity.  These  hallowed  friends  slept  in  each  other's  arms, 
and  their  heads  rested  on  the  same  pillow.  Their  society  and 
affections,  however,  were  quite  spiritual  and  platonic,  and 
purified  from  all  the  grosser  elements  which  sometimes  attend 
on  ordinary  mortals. 

Jerome,  however,  had,  notwithstanding  their  pretensions,  no 
very  high  idea  of  their  purity.  These  virgins  professed  to  seek 
spiritual  consolation  ;  but,  in  reality,  pursued  something  which 
the  saint,  as  usual,  expresses  in  very  coarse  language,  that  will 
scarcely  bear  a  literal  translation.  Their  spiritual  consolation, 
in  Jerome's  account,  had  some  relation  to  the  flesh.  The  ex- 
pansion of  the  women's  waists  and  the  cry  of  infants,  which,  it 
seems,  were  phenomena  that  sometimes  attended  this  kind  of 
Platonism,  provoked  the  hostility  of  the  monk  of  Palestine,  who, 
in  consequence,  characterized  the  whole  system  as  a  pestilence. 
Some  of  these  sentimental  Platonics  endeavoured  to  conceal 
their  frailty  by  a  free  use  of  medical  applications.2 

The  conduct  of  the  clergy  also  awakened  Jerome's  holy 
indignation.  These  affected  the  sacred  office  for  the  gratifica- 
tion of  licentiousness  in  the  company  of  women.  Their  whole 
attention  was  engaged  on  dress  and  perfumery.  Their  fingers 
shone  with  rings,  their  hair  was  frizzled  by  the  curling  tongs, 
and  they  walked  on  tip-toe  lest  the  damp  should  sully  their 
feet.3 

Chrysostom  also  gives  an  animated  description  of  the  society 
of  these  spiritualized  parsons  and  dames.  He  pourtrays,  in 
glowing  language,  '  their  smiles,  their  laughs,  their  free  conver- 
sation, their  soft  words,  their  communications  at  table  during 
the  day,  their  supping  together  at  night  and  other  things  im- 
proper to  name.'4  Chrysostom,  weak  man !  suspected  the 

1  Eadem  domo,  uno  cubiculo,  saepe  uno  tenentur  et  lectulo.     Jerom  ad  Bust.  4. 
33.     Cyprian  ad  Pom. 

2  Quaerunt  alienorum  spirituale  solatium  ut  domi  habeant  carnale  commercium. 
Tumor  uteri  et  hifantum  prodiderit  vagitus.     Unde  in  ecclesias  Agepatarum  pestig 
introiit  ?     Nonnullae  abortii  venena  meditantur.     Jerom  ad  Eustoch,  4.  32,  33. 

3  Presbyteratum  et  diacouatum  ambiunt,  ut  mulieres  licentius  videant.     Omnia 
his  cura  de  vestibus  si  bene  oleant.     Crines  calamestri  vestigio  rotantur.    Digiti  de 
annulis  radiant;  et  ne  plautas  humidior  via  aspergat,  vix  imprimunt  summa  vesti 
gia.     Jerom,  4.  40. 

4  Neoj    o<J>piywv  *9    etyLatt,   xoprj    ovvoixuv   rfapfovw,     xat    ovyxaOypfvos,    XM 
ovv&firtvuv,    xai    tfri^tateyojwfvoj,     rcruj     cucatpov;    yeKu'tos     fa$     &(.a.%vOfi$     xat 
uaXaxa    p^ara,  xai    -to,   aMux,    a  ujjSs   teytiv   tcrwj   jcaXov.     Chrysostom,  De  Su- 
bin,  I.   231. 


CONCUBINAGE    AND    ITS     ENORMITIES.  555 

chastity  of  a  wanton  youth,  living  in  this  manner  with  a  kind 
girl.  But  the  saint,  it  appears,  had  another  reason  for  his  sus- 
picions. He  had  seen  a  constant  running  of  midwives  to  the 
abodes  of  these  virgins.  The  driving  of  these  beldams 
alarmed  his  fears.  The  saint,  in  his  simplicity,  doubted  whether 
these  ladies  of  the  abstetric  ait  would  gallop  so  fast  without 
urgent  business. 

A  second  variety  of  evasion  or  violation  of  these  canons, 
consisted  in  concubinage.  This  was  a  native  result  of  the 
unnatural  regulations  against  wedlock.  The  accounts,  on  this 
subject,  transmitted  by  the  historians  of  these  times,  are  appall- 
ing. Profligacy,  says  Giannon,  prevailed  among  the  clergy, 
who  practised  all  kinds  of  lewdness.  Ratherius,  bishop  of 
Verona,  represents  the  clergy  as  guilty  of  bigamy,  drunken- 
ness, and  fornication.  His  representation  of  priestly  inconti- 
nence is  expressed  with  strong  sarcasm  and  emphatical  diction. 
The  Italian  priesthood,  in  particular,  fomented  their  passions 
by  excess  of  food  and  wine.  These  aggravated  their  con- 
stitutional licentiousness  by  luxury  in  eating  and  drinking.1 

Atto's  language,  on  this  topic,  is  equally  striking.  He  re- 
presents some  of  the  clergy  as  sold  in  such  a  degree  to  their 
lusts,  that  they  kept  filthy  harlots  in  their  houses.  These,  in  a 
public  manner,  lived,  bedded,  and  boarded  with  their  conse- 
crated paramours.  Fascinated  with  their  wanton  allurements, 
the  abandoned  clergy  conferred  on  the  partners  of  their  guilt, 
the  superintendence  of  their  family  and  all  their  domestic 
concerns.  These  courtezans,  during  the  lives  of  their  com- 
panions in  iniquity,  managed  their  households:  and,  at  their 
death,  inherited  their  property.  The  ecclesiastical  alms  and 
revenues,  in  this  manner,  descended  to  the  accomplices  of  vile 
prostitution.2  The  hirelings  of  pollution  were  adorned,  the 
church  wasted,  and  the  poor  oppressed  by  men  who  professed 
tu  be  the  patrons  of  purity,  the  guardians  of  truth,  and  the 
protectors  of  the  wretched  and  the  needy. 

Damian  represents  the  guilty  mistress  as  confessing  to  the 
guilty  priest.3  This  presented  another  absurdity  and  an  ag- 
gravation of  the  crime.  The  formality  of  confessing  what  the 
father  confessor  knew,  and  receiving  forgiveness  from  a  partner 
in  sin,  was  an  insult  on  common  sense,  and  presented  one  of 
the  many  ridiculous  scenes  which  have  been  exhibited  on  the 

1  Giannon,  V.  6.     Dachery,  1.  354.     Bruy.  2.  268. 

*  Quod  dicere  pudet.  Quidem  in  tantura  libidini  mancipantur,  ut  obscoenas 
meretriculas  sua  simul  in  domo  secum  habitare,  uno  cibum  sumere,  ac  publice 
degere  permittant.  Unde  meretrices  ornantur,  ecclesiae  vestantur,  pauperes  tri- 
bulantur.  Atto,  Ep.  Dachery,  1.  439. 

3  Les  coupables  se  confessent  A  leurs  complices,  qui  ne  letir  imposant  point  de 
penitences  convenables.  Damian  in  Bruy.  2.  356.  Giannon,  X.  $  1. 


556  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  t 

theatre  of  the  world.  Confession  and  absolution  in  this  way 
were,  after  all,  ver}r  convenient.  The  fair  penitent  had  not  far 
to  go  for  pardon,  nor  for  an  opportunity  of  repeating  the  fault, 
which  might  qualify  her  for  another  course  of  confession  and 
remission.  Her  spiritual  father  could  spare  her  blushes  ;  and 
his  memory  could  supply  any  deficiency  of  recollection  in  the 
enumeration  of  her  sins.  A  minute  recapitulation  of  time, 
place,  and  other  circumstantial  trifles  would  be  unnecessary. 
The  rehearsal  of  the  delicious  sin  might,  to  both,  be  very 
amusing.  The  sacrament  of  confession,  in  this  manner,  would, 
by  recalling  the  transaction  to  mind,  become  very  edifying,  and 
afford  a  renewal  of  the  enjoyment.  This  mode  of  remission 
was  attended  with  another  advantage,  which  was  a  great  im- 
provement on  the  old  plan.  The  confessor,  in  the  penance 
which  he  prescribed  on  these  occasions,  exemplified  the  virtues 
of  compassion  and  charity.  Christian  commiseration  and 
sympathy  took  place  of  rigour  and  strictness.  The  holy  father 
indeed  could  not  be  severe  on  so  dear  a  friend  ;  and  the  lady 
could  not  refuse  to  be  kind  again  to  such  an  indulgent  father. 
Damian,  however,  in  his  want  of  charity  and  liberality,  saw 
the  transaction  in  a  different  light ;  and  complained  in  bitterness 
of  this  laxity  of  discipline,  and  the  insult  on  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction and  on  rational  piety. 

This  adultery  and  fornication  of  the  clergy  degenerated,  in 
many  instances,  into  incest  and  other  abominations  of  the  grossest 
kind.  Some  priests,  according  to  the  council  of  Mentz  in  888, 
'  had  sons  by  their  own  sisters.'1  The  council  of  Nicea  and 
some  other  of  a  later  date,  through  fear  of  scandal,  deprived 
the  clergy  of  all  female  company,  except  a  mother,  a  sister,  or 
an  aunt,  who,  it  was  reckoned,  was  beyond  all  suspicion.  But 
the  means  intended  for  prevention  were  the  occasion  of  more 
accumulated  scandal  and  more  heinous  criminality.  The 
interdiction  was  the  introduction  to  incestuous  and  unnatural 
prostitution.  The  council  of  Mentz,  therefore,  in  its  tenth  canon, 
as  well  as  other  cotemporary  and  later  synods,  had  to  forbid 
the  clergy  the  society  of  even  their  nearest  female  relations. 

A  third  variety  for  the  evasion,  or  rather  for  the  infraction  of 
these  canonical  interdictions,  was  clandestine  or  avowed  matri- 
mony. Some  of  the  priests  though  they  could  ill  afford  it, 
wished  to  keep  a  conscience.  These,  of  course,  would  shudder 
at  the  commission  of  fornication  or  adultery,  and  had  recourse 
therefore  to  the  honourable  institution  of  heaven  for  the  preven- 
tion of  such  pollution.  These,  intrenched  behind  the  authority 
of  God,  withstood  the  commandments  of  men.  The  number  of 

1  Quidam  sacerdotum  cum  propriis  sororibus  coucumbentes,  filios  ex  eis  geneiv 
assent.  Bin.  7.  137.  Labb.  11.  586. 


OPPOSITION    OF    THE    MARRIED    CLERGY    TO    GREGORY.       557 

these  continued  to  increase  in  opposition  to  the  decretals  of 
popes,  the  canons  of  councils,  and  the  prepossessions  of  the 
people.  The  frequent  repetitions  of  these  prohibitions  showed 
their  inefficacy,  and  clerical  obstinacy.  The  interdictory 
councils  were  all  provincial ;  many  of  them  contemptible  :  and 
ecclesiastics  continued  to  marry  in  despite  of  their  regulations. 
The  priesthood,  in  general,  at  the  accession  of  Gregory  the 
Seventh,  in  defiance  of  obsolete  laws,  lived  in  a  state  of  mat- 
rimony.1 

Such  was  the  state  of  clerical  matrimony,  at  the  accession  of 
Hildebrand,  or  Gregory  the  Seventh,  to  the  popedom  in  1074. 
The  reign  of  this  hierarch  commenced  a  new  era  in  the  annals 
of  sacerdotal  celibacy.  Gregory  enforced  celibacy  with  a  high 
hand  among  the  Latin  ecclesiastics  ;  and  was  supported  in  the 
undertaking  by  many  of  the  laity.  The  attempt,  however, 
was  long  opposed  by  the  priesthood  :  and  its  success  termin- 
ated in  the  general  concubinage  and  debauchery  of  the  western 
clergy. 

Gregory  succeeded,  to  a  great  extent,  in  the  suppression  of 
priestly  marriage.  Several  of  his  predecessors  had  made  a 
similar  attempt,  but  in  vain.  Stephen,  Nicholas,  and  Alexan- 
der had  laboured  for  this  purpose,  and  failed.  But  Gregory 
proceeded  in  this,  as  in  every  other  design,  with  superior  abil- 
ity and  resolution ;  and  his  efforts  were  crowned  in  the  end 
with  wonderful  success.  He  summoned  a  council  and  issued 
canons,  separating  the  married  clergy  from  their  partners,  and 
forbidding  the  ordination  of  any  who  would  not  vow  perpetual 
continence.  He  prohibited  the  laity  from  hearing  mass,  when 
celebrated  by  a  married  priest.2  These  enactments  he  enforced 
with  his  usual  obstinacy  and  with  his  usual  success. 

The  laity,  in  general,  seem  to  have  seconded  the  efforts  of  the 
pontiff.  These,  in  many  instances,  refused  the  administration 
of  baptism  and  the  communion  from  the  married  clergy.  Lay- 
men administered  baptism  :  and  often  trampled  the  bread  and 
spilled  the  wine  which  had  been  consecrated  for  sacramental 
use  by  married  clergymen.3 

The  clergy  opposed  the  pontiff  with  all  their  might.  These, 
Paris  relates,  characterized  priestly  celibacy  and  continence  as 
an  innovation  and  a  rash  judgment  contrary  to  the  sentence  of 
the  holy  fathers.  One,  says  the  English  historian,  contended  for 
equity  and  the  other  against  it ;  while  the  consequence  was  scan- 
dal and  division  in  the  church  ;  so  that  no  greater  schism  was 

1  Epiph.  H.  59.     Jerom.  adv.  Vig.     Thorn.  I.  43.     I  Corin.  VII.  2. 

J  Bin  7.  473.     Bruy.  2.  388,  418.     Labb.  12.  547.     Da  Pin,  2.  244. 

3  Infantes  baptizant.  Corpus  Domini  a  presbyteris  uxoratis  consecratura  pedi- 
bus  saepe  conculcant,  et  sunguinem  Domini  voluntarie  frequenter  in  terrain  effim- 
duHt.  M.  Paris,  8.  Bin.  7.  288. 


55S  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY.. 

produced  by  any  heresy.  Lambert  and  other  historians  have 
transmitted  similar  accounts.  The  clergy,  says  the  annalist, 
raged  and  called  Gregory  the  patron  of  heresy,  and  the  abettor 
of  a  mad  system,  who  by  violence  would  compel  men  to  live  like 
angels,  stop  the  course  of  nature,  and  give  the  slackened  reins 
to  all  pollution.  The  clergy  also,  in  retaliation,  accused  the 
pontiff  of  incest  with  Matilda,  countess  of  Mantua,  who,  say 
Marius  and  Caron,  was  a  women  of  extraordinary  superstition, 
and  greater  effrontery  than  became  her  sex.1 

Similar  dissensions,  on  this  question,  took  place  in  1075  at 
the  council  of  Erford  in  Germany.  The  archbishop  of  Mentz, 
prompted  by  the  pontiff,  required  the  assembled  clergy  either  to 
abandon  their  wives  or  the  ministry  of  the  altar.  The  ecclesi- 
astics, who  sat  round  the  archbishop,  chose  neither  alternative. 
They  first  confounded  their  diocesan  with  words,  which  again 
were  soon  followed  by  blows  as  the  more  efficient  argument. 
The  archbishop,  in  the  end,  was  so  maltreated  that  he  despaired 
of  his  life,  and  wisely  resolved  to  consign  the  enforcement  of 
celibacy  to  his  holiness.2 

But  resistance  to  Gregory  was  vain.  He  projected  the  sub- 
jugation of  Christendom,  and  executed  his  plan  with  matchless 
resolution  and  success.  He  employed  all  means,  foul  and  fair, 
and  wielded  in  turn,  canons,  decretals,  threats,  violence,  arms, 
fraud,  flattery,  anathemas,  and  excommunication.  Pretended 
miracles  too  were  made  the  agents  of  his  ambition.  These,  in 
an  age  of  ignorance  and  barbarism,  when  forgery  and  nonsense 
passed  for  truth  and  reason,  possessed,  in  the  hand  of  supersti- 
tion, irresistible  power  and  efficacy.  His  infallibility's  4  lying 
wonders,'  ridiculous  in  themselves,  were  irrefragable,  when  ad- 
dressed to  an  unlettered  and  superstitious  populace.  The  clergy 
had  to  yield  to  the  pontiff,  and  reason  to  tyranny. 

Such  was  the  rigour  of  ecclesiastical  laws  in  the  popish  com- 
munion against  sacerdotal  matrimony.  But  this  communion, 
which  was  so  severe  against  wedlock  in  the  clergy,  was,  in  a 
very  extraordinary  degree,  indulgent  to  concubinage  both  in  the 
clergy  and  laity.  Any  person,  clergyman  or  layman,  according 
to  the  council  of  Toledo  in  its  seventeenth  canon,  who  has  not 
a  wife  but  a  concubine,  is  not  to  be  repelled  from  the  commu- 

1  Novo  exemplo,  et  ut  multis  visura  est,  contra  sanctorum  patrum  Bententiam. 
M.   Paris,  8.     Bruy.  2.  431.     Infrerauit  tota   factio   clericorum   homiiiem    piano 
haereticum  et  vesani  dogmatis  ease  clamitans.     Fornication!  et  immuuditiei  fraena 
laxaret.     Lambert,  Ann.    1074.     Labb.  12.   547.     Pontificem  de  incesto  cum  ea 
amore  infamare  non  veriti  fuerint.     Spon.  1074.  III.  IV.     Mulier  insignia  supersti- 
tionis  et  mojoris  audaciae  quam  sexum  muliebrem  deceret.     Caron,  142. 

2  Exurgentes  qui  undique  assidebaut  clerici,  ita  cum  verbis  confuudcbant,  ita 
manibus  debacchabantur,  ut  se  vita  comite  e  syuodo  dicessurum  despeiaret.     Bin 
7.  281.     Lamb.  Ann.  1075.     Bruy.  2.  438.     Labb.  12.  582. 


CLERICAL    FORNICATION    PREFERRED    TO    MATRIMONY.       559 

nion,  if  he  be  content  with  one.1  The  holy  bishops,  indeed,  in 
their  wisdom,  would  not  allow  two  women  to  one  man.  But 
any  Christian,  according  to  the  prelacy  of  Spain,  might,  at 
pleasure,  keep  either  a  wife  or  a  mistress.  This,  no  doubt, 
was  very  liberal  and  obliging  in  the  sacred  synod.  But  his 
holiness  pope  Leo  was  not  to  be  outdone  by  the  episcopacy,  in 
complaisance  and  liberality.  His  infallibility,  the  vicar-general 
of  God,  confirmed,  in  the  kindest  manner  and  with  the  utmost 
courtesy,  the  council  of  Toledo  and  the  act  of  the  Spanish 
prelacy.2 

The  Toledan  canon  and  its  pontifical  confirmation  were 
equally  wicked  and  ridiculous.  The  wickedness  of  the  enact- 
ment appears  in  its  contrariety  to  the  law  of  God,  and  indeed, 
in  general,  to  the  code  of  all  civilized  nations.  Its  ridiculousness 
is  also  apparent.  The  permission  extends  to  every  person,  or, 
according  to  one  edition  of  the  sacred  canon,  to  the  faithful, 
comprising  all  Christians.  The  expression,  Giannon  has  ob- 
served, comprehended,  at  one  time,  the  clergy  as  well  as  the 
laity.3  A  man,  at  will,  might  keep  a  women  of  either  character, 
and  he  might  therefore  show  his  taste  in  this  freedom  of  variety. 
But  the  holy  legislators  would  not  allow  two  women  to  one 
man.  Two,  the  Spanish  fathers  thought,  would  be  a  super- 
abundance of  this  species  of  live  stock.  But  the  Christian, 
whose  humour  inclined  him  to  an  unmarried  rather  than  to  a 
married  mistress,  might  gratify  his  taste,  and,  at  the  same  time, 
continue  one  of  the  faithful  and  be  admitted  to  the  communion. 
Such  was  the  hopeful  decision  of  a  Spanish  council  and  a 
Roman  pontiff:  but,  ridiculous  as  it  is,  this  is  not  all.  The 
enactment  of  the  council  and  the  pope  has  been  inserted  in  the 
Romish  body  of  the  Canon  Law  edited  by  Gratian  and  Pithou. 
Gratian's  compilation  indeed  was  a  private  production,  unau- 
thenticated  by  any  pope^  But  Pithou  published  by  the  com- 
mand of  Gregory  the  Thirteenth,  and  his  work  contains  the 
acknowledged  Canon  Law  of  the  Romish  church.  His  edition 
is  accredited  by  pontifical  authority,  and  recognized  through 
popish  Christendom.4  Fornication  therefore  is  sanctioned  by  a 
Spanish  council,  a  Roman  pontiff,  and  the  canon  law. 

Fornication,  in  this  manner,  was,  in  the  clergy,  not  only  tole- 
rated but  also  preferred  to  matrimony.  Many  of  the  popish 
casuists,  such  as'  Costerus,  Pighius,  Hosius,  Campeggio,  and 
those  reported  by  Agrippa,  raised  whoredom  above  wedlock  in 
the  Hierarchy.  Costerus  admits  that  a  clergyman  sins,  if  he 

1  Christiauo  habere  licitura  est  unam  tantrnn  aut  uxorem,  aut  certe  loco  uxoria 
concubinam.  Pithou,  47.  Bin.  1.  739,  740.  Crabb.  1.  449.  Giannou,  v.  5. 
Dachery,  1.  528.  Canisius,  2.  111. 

9  Confirmatum  videtur  authoritate  Leonis  Papae.     Bin.  1.  737. 

3  Giannou,  XI.  7.  «  Dist.  34   c.  4.     Pithou,  47. 


560  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 


commit  fornication  ;  but  more  heinously  if  he  marty.  Concubi* 
nage,  the  Jesuit  grants,  is  sinful;  but  less  aggravated,  he 
maintains,  than  marriage.  Costerus  was  followed  by  Pighius 
and  Hosius.  Campeggio  proceeded  to  still  greater  extrava- 
gancy. He  represented  a  priest  who  became  a  husband,  as 
committing  a  moregrevious  transgression  than  if  he  should  keep 
many  domestic  harlots.1  An  ecclesiastic,  rather  than  marry, 
should,  according  to  this  precious  divine,  keep  a  seraglio.  The 
cardinal  gives  an  odd  reason  for  his  theory.  The  clergyman, 
he  affirms,  who  perpetrates  whoredom,  acts  from  a  persuasion 
of  its  rectitude  or  legality  ;  while  the  other  knows  and  ac- 
knowledges his  criminality.  The  priesthood,  therefore,  in 
Campeggio's  statement,  are  convinced  of  the  propriety  of 
fornication. 

Agrippa  draws  a  similar  character  of  the  legislators,  who 
enacted  the  laws  of  celibacy  and  who,  according  to  this  author, 
would  rather  have  clergymen  fornicators  in  infamy  than  husbands 
in  honesty.  This,  in  this  sixteenth  century,  was  a  frightful 
fact,  of  which  the  Emperor  Maximilian  and  other  German 
princes  complained,  and  which  with  good  reason  they  denomi- 
nated a  glaring  absurdity.  The  clergy  who  married  were  dis- 
missed from  the  exercise  of  the  sacred  functions  ;  while  the  sa- 
cerdotal fornicators,  who  violated  the  laws  of  God  and  man, 
were  allowed  to  retain  the  holy  ministry.2  Sacerdotal  concu- 
binage, accordingly,  prior  to  the  reformation,  was  the  common 
usage,  and  less  offensive  in  the  eyes  of  the  papacy  and  the 
populace  than  clerical  matrimony.  The  ecclesiastics  of  the 
papal  communion,  indeed,  since  the  days  of  Luther  and  Calvin, 
are,  in  appearance  at  least  and  in  most  nations,  become  more 
circumspect,  and  aim  at  a  character  of  decency.  This  is  one 
glorious  effect  of  the  reformation. 

The  popish  doctors,  in  this  way,  not  only  indulge  priestly 
fornicators,  but  also,  to  encourage  business,  honour  their  part- 
ners in  trade.  These  useful  allies  of  the  priesthood  are, 
according  to  Pope  Paul  the  Third  and  all  the  Romish  doctors, 
comprehended  in  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  These  privi- 
leged patrons  of  prostitution  belong  to  the  sacred  hierarchy, 
and  enjoy  the  right  of  exemption  from  secular  legislation  and 
authority.  Charles  the  Second  of  Anjou,  accordingly,  ordained 

1  Gravius  peccat,  si  contrahat  matrimonium.     Cost.  c.  15 

Quod  sacerdotes  fiant  mariti,  multo  esse  gravius  peccatum  quam  si  plurimat 
domi  meretrices  alunt.  Nam  illos  habere  persuasum  quasi  recte  faciant,  hosautera 
ecire  et  peccatum  agnoscere.  Campeggio,  in  Sleidan,  96. 

3  Maltierunt  illi  legislatores  sacerdotes  suas  cum  infamia  habere  concubiuas, 
quam  cum  honesta  fama  uxores.  Agrippa  in  Bayle,  1.  111. 

Absurd  um  esse  sacerdotes  conjugates  removere,  scortatores  vero  qui  contr» 
legem  divinam  ethuuianam  simul  peccant,  delinqueutes  pati.  Ihuan.  2.  417. 


BIGAMY    ALLOWED    BY    POPE    GREGORY    II.  661 

that  these  polluted  companions  of  the  clergy  should  not,  like 
the  laity,  forfeit  the  fourth  of  their  possessions.1  The  base 
fornicatress,  in  this  manner,  enjoyed,  in  the  perpetration  of 
filthiness  and  in  the  bosom  of  an  infallible  church,  the  exemp- 
tions and  immunity  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy. 

All  this,  however,  is  not  the  end  of  the  comedy,  or  rather 
tragedy.  The  Roman  pontiff  and  the  Roman  clergy  have,  on 
many  occasions,  proceeded  to  deeper  enormity  and  authorized 
adultery  or  bigamy.  Bossuet  has  accused  Luther,  Melancthon, 
Bucer,  Adam,  Lening,  Winfert,  and  Melanther  of  encouraging 
bigamy  in  the  Landgrave  Philip;  and  has,  in  the  imputation, 
been  followed  by  Varillas  and  Arnold.  Luther  and  Melanc- 
thon erred  in  their  instructions  to  Philip.  But  the  directions 
of  the  reformers  have,  in  this  instance,  been  misstated  and 
exaggerated  by  the  Bishop  of  Meaux.  Perceiving  the  obsti- 
nacy of  the  Landgrave,  seven  Theologians,  who  had  patronized 
the  reformation,  represented  bigamy  as  less  heinous  than 
adultery;  and  advised,  in  this  case,  the  closest  secrecy.  Ams- 
dorf  and  Justus,  however,  as  well  as  all  the  other  reformers, 
deprecated  even  this  advice  or  connivance.2  And  Luther 
learned  this  theology  in  the  school  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  and 
clergy.  A  few  specimens  may  be  selected  out  of  many  for 
illustration. 

Gregory  the  Second,  in  all  his  infallibility,  authorized  bigamy, 
which,  in  the  popish  system,  is  tantamount  to  adultery.  Boni- 
face, the  celebrated  Apostle  of  Germany,  had,  in  726,  inquired 
of  his  holiness,  whether  men,  whose  wives  were  not  dead,  but 
incapacitated  by  infirmity,  might  again  marry.  His  infalli- 
bility's reply  is  worthy  of  perpetual  memory.  He  recommended 
continence  indeed  to  such  as  possessed  the  gift.  But  those 
unendowed  with  continence,  which  is  a  great  attainment,  might, 
according  to  the  Viceroy  oY  heaven,  again  marry.  This  is  a 
precious  sample  of  pontifical  casuistry.  His  infallibility  re- 
solved the  difficulty  by  sanctioning  bigamy  and  adultery. 
Epiphanius,  as  has  been  already  noticed,  had  taught  the  same 
inconsistency  as  Gregory :  and  the  Roman  pontiff  followed  the 
footsteps  of  the  Grecian  saint.  Bellarmine,  in  this  case,  is, 
contrary  to  his  avowed  system,  constrained  to  grant  the  igno- 
rance and  error  of  Gregory.3 

1  Au  sentiment  de  tous  les  Docteurs  les  concubines  memes  des  pretres  resortis- 
spient  au  jugement  du  foxecclesiastique.     Paol.  1.  133.     Non  seulement  les  eccle- 
aiastiques  etoient  exempts  de  la  jurisdiction  seculiere,  mais  encore  leurs  families, 
et  meme  leurs  concubines,  au  sentiment  de  tons  les  Docteurs.    Bruy.   4.   498. 
Giannon,  X.  $.  1. 

2  Bossuet,  VI.     Seckendorf,  278. 

3  Nam  quod  proposuisti,  quod  si  mulier  infirmitate  correpta  non  valuerit  debituz. 
viro  reddere,  quid  ejus  facial  jugalis?     Bonum  esset  si  sic  permaneret,  ut  absti- 
aeatise   vacaret.     Sed  quia  hoc  magncrum  est,  ille  qui  so  a?n  poterit  contiuere, 

36 


562  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY! 

His  holiness,  no  doubt,  was  very  accommodating.  He 
deserves  the  thanks  of  all  husbands,  whose  partners  are  dis- 
abled by  debility.  He  was  so  liberal  as  to  allow  the  man  to 
judge  when  the  woman,  to  whom  he  is  married,  is,  through 
weakness,  unfit  for  action.  All,  therefore,  according  to  his 
infallibility's  system,  may  take  a  second  companion  when  they 
think  proper.  Gregory's  doctrine,  however,  is  now  rank  hete- 
rodoxy in  the  Romish  communion.  The  council  of  Trent,  in 
its  twenty-fourth  session,  declared  against  the  vicar-general  of 
God.  The  sacred  synod,  without  any  ceremony,  launched  its 
anathemas  against  Gregory  and  his  pestilential  heresy ;  and 
sent  the  vicegerent  of  heaven,  eight  hundred  years  after  hia 
death,  to  the  abodes  of  the  lost. 

The  Roman  pontiff's  case  was  far  more  aggravated  than  the> 
German  reformer's.  The  Lutheran  pastor's  opinion  related  to 
only  one  person :  and  its  author  had  no  more  authority  than  any 
other  individual.  The  former  referred  to  many :  and  was  de- 
livered by  the  vicar-general  of  God,  the  head  of  the  church, 
and  the  teacher  of  all  Christians.  Gregory's  decretal  was 
couched  in  general  terms,  and  may,  in  its  wide  extension,  com- 
prehend all  men.  Many  have  invested  its  author  with  the 
attribute  of  infallibility ;  though  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  fine 
style,  and  in  the  exercise  of  its  inerrability,  tossed  an  anathema 
at  his  devoted  head. 

This  pontiff's  theory  was,  in  752,  adopted  by  the  council  of 
Vermeria  or  Verbery.  Pepin  the  French  king,  with  the 
French  prelacy,  was  present  in  this  assembly,  which,  say 
Daniel  and  VelJy,  gave  a  mortal  blow  to  the  indissolubility  of 
the  matrimonial  chain.1  The  Gallican  clergy  allowed  the 
privilege  of  repudiation  and  subsequent  wedlock  to  the  person 
who  should  marry  a  slave,  who,  before  the  nuptial  ceremony, 
had  pretended  to  be  free.  The  sacred  synod  granted  the 
same  liberty  to  the  man,  whose  wife  should  conspire  against 
his  life  or  refuse  to  accompany  him  to  a  distant  country  :  and 
to  the  women  whose  husband  should  defile  her  sister  or  mother, 
or  should,  through  aversion  or  impotency,  neglect  herself.  Such 
were  the  decisions  of  a  popish  synod.  These,  unlike  the  Lu- 
theran instructions  to  the  Hessian  Landgrave,  extended  not 
merely  to  one  but  to  many.  The  Saxon  reformer,  though  he 
erred,  was,  as  even  the  partial  Bishop  of  Meaux  might  have 
seen,  far  less  guilty  than  a  Roman  pontiff  and  a  Romish  council. 

Charlemagne,  with  the   contemporary  Roman  pontiff  and 

nubat  magis.     Greg.  II.    Ep.  13.     Labb.  8.     178.     Bin.  5.  454.     Pontificem  ex 
ignorantia  lapsum  esse,  nt  hoc  loco  videtur  Gregorius  fecisse.     Bell.  IV.  12. 

1  Qui  donnent  de  grandes  atteintes  a  rindissolubilit6  du  mariage.     Daniel,  2.  11. 
Veliy,  1 .  387.     Labb.  8.  405.    Cotel.  1.  88. 


ADULTERY   OR   BIGAMY    PERMITTED    TO    THE    LAITY.       563 

French  clergy,  exemplified  the  theory  of  pope  Gregory  and  the 
Vermerian  council.  The  French  sovereign  divorced  Himil- 
trud,  the  daughter  of  a  French  nobleman,  and  married  Bertha, 
a  princess  of  Lombardy.  This  match,  pope  Stephen  feared, 
would  ally  the  French  and  Lombards  against  the  Roman  pon- 
tiff. He  plied  every  means  therefore,  reason,  invective,  menace, 
and  flattery,  to  prevent  the  union.  His  letter  to  Charles  and 
Carloman  on  the  occasion  is  one  of  the  most  senseless,  silly, 
ridiculous,  and  disgusting  monuments  of  antiquity.  His  infalli- 
bility warned  the  emperor  of  the  pestilential  blandishments  of 
woman,  which  had  expelled  man  from  paradise,  and  entailed 
death  on  the  human  family.  He  eulogized  the  grandeur  and 
celebrity  of  the  Franks,  who  would  be  polluted  by  an  alliance 
with  the  contemptible,  leprous,  and  STINKING  Lombards  ;  a 
nation  without  faith  or  religion.  He  mentioned  the  indissolu- 
bility  of  marriage,  and  denounced  the  intended  union  as  a 
diabolical  confederacy.  Charles  and  Carloman  he  adjured 
against  the  pending  negotiations  by  the  living  God,  the  day  of 
judgment,  and  the  sacred  body  of  Peter  the  prince  of  the 
apostles.  Any  who  should  disregard  his  adjuration,  he  ana- 
thematized by  apostolical  authority,  banished  from  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  and  consigned  to  the  devil  to  burn  in  everlasting 
fire.1 

The  king  of  Lombardy,  however,  soon  pacified  his  holiness. 
He  restored  some  places,  which  he  had  taken  from  the  ecclesias- 
tical states,  and  this  sop  soon  quieted  the  pontifical  Cerberus. 
He  discontinued  his  opposition :  and  talked  no  more  of  the 
allurements  of  women,  the  STENCH  of  the  Lombards,  the  indis- 
solubility  of  marriage,  or  the  thunders  of  excommunication. 
Charles  was  united,  in  peace,  to  the  princess  of  Lombardy.2 

Bertha,  however,  like  Himiltrud,  was  soon  divorced,  to  make 
way  for  Hildegard,  a  Suevian  princess.  Bertha,  through  infir- 
mity, was  unfit  for  having  children.  This  debility,  the  French 
clergy,  like  Gregory,  reckoned  a  sufficient  reason  for  repudi- 
ation. Her  impotency,  in  the  ingenuous  and  honest  interpre- 
tation of  the  Gallican  clergy,  was  equivalent  to  death.3 
Bertha,  a  year  after  her  nuptials,  was  sent  to  Lombardy,  and 
Hildegard,  as  queen,  placed  on  the  throne.  The  repudiation, 
however,  of  both  Bertha  and  Himiltrud,  in  the  present  popish 

1  A  regno  Dei  alienum,  atque  cum  diabolo  aeternis  incendiis   concremandum 
deputation.     Steph.  ad  Carol.     Labb.  12.  481.     Velly,  1.  387. 

II  leur  represente  cette  alliance  comme  1'  ouvrage  du  Demon,  et  les  Lombards 
comme  une  nation  meprisable,  perfide,  infecte6  de  la  lepre.     Vertot,  63. 

2  On  contenta  pour  adoucir  son  chagrin  de  lui  faire  restituer  quelques  place*. 
Velly.  1.  389.   Le  n'est  plus  un  perfide,  un  lepreux.     Vertot,  71. 

3  Bertha  esset  clmica  et  ad  propagandam  prolem  inhabilis,  ideoque  judicio  epis- 
coporum,  earn  relictam  ab  illo  esse  velut  mortuam.     Porro  reddita  esset  ex  morbo 
penitus  impoteus  ad  concubitum.   Spon.  771.  Ill,  Velly.  1.  389.  Moreri,  2.  299. 

36* 


664  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  ! 

system,  was  invalid  ;  and  the  French  king,  like  the  German 
landgrave,  had,  at  one  time,  not  merely  two  but  three  wives. 
Baronius,  nevertheless,  calls  Hildegard  a  princess  of  exemplary 
piety.  The  French  episcopacy  sanctioned  the  divorce  and 
consequent  marriage,  while  Adrian,  the  contemporary  pontiff, 
the  universal  bishop,  whose  duty  it  was  to  enforce  the  obser- 
vance of  the  canons  through  Christendom,  expressed  not, 
during  the  whole  transaction,  a  single  hint  of  disapprobation. 
The  French  monarch,  unlike  the  Hessian  prince,  was,  after  his 
death,  canonized  by  pope  Pascal ;  and  many  worshipped  the 
imperial  saint. 

Pope  Celestine,  in  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  defined 
heresy  to  be  a  reason  for  the  dissolution  of  marriage,  as  Greg- 
ory and  the  French  clergy  had  admitted  the  plea  of  debility. 
The  person,  according  to  this  pontiff,  whose  partner  in  life 
becomes  guilty  of  heterodoxy,  may,  on  account  of  this  error  in 
faith,  choose  another.1  Philip,  could  he  have  proved  the 
Landgravine  a  heretic,  would  have  had  pontifical  authority  to 
transfer  his  hand  and  affections  to  an  orthodox  companion. 
Celestine's  definition,  however,  is  now,  according  to  the  council 
of  Trent,  in  its  twenty-fourth  session,  a  pestilent  heresy. 

Innocent  the  Fourth  sanctioned  bigamy,  without  even  the 

Elea  of  heresy.  Alphonsus  of  Portugal,  about  1243,  divorced 
is  queen,  and  espoused  the  princess  Beatrix.  The  repudiation 
and  nuptials  were  authorized  by  a  bull  of  his  holiness.2  The 
Roman  pontiff,  remarks  Charenton,  Mariana's  translator,  with 
amusing  simplicity,  permitted  such  transactions  at  that  time, 
with  much  greater  facility  than  he  would  at  the  present  day. 

The  popish  clergy,  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
though  superintended  by  the  Roman  pontiff,  the  universal  pastor, 
permitted  bigamy  in  Livonia.  A  man,  says  Henry,  canon  of 
Worms,  was,  in  the  Livonian  dominions,  allowed  to  have  two 
living  wives,  and  a  woman  a  plurality  of  husbands.3  The 
bishop  of  Meaux,  had  it  agreed  with  his  taste,  might  have 
discovered  exemplifications  of  bigamy  in  his  own  communion 
without  having  recourse  to  the  Reformation. 

Alexander,  following  the  footsteps  of  his  predecessors,  issued 
vbulls  of  repudiation  and  dispensation  of  marriage  to  Ladislas 
and  Philip.  Ladislas,  king  of  Hungary,  divorced  Beatrix  of 
Arragon  and  married  Anne  of  Foix.  The  separation  from  the 


1  Celestinus  definivit  per  hseresim  ita  matrimonium  solvi,  ut  liceat  ei  aliud  con- 
jugium  inire,  cujus  prior  conjux  in  haeresim  lapsus  sit.  Alphon.  1.  4.  Walsh.  33. 
Bell.  1.  777. 

3  II  obtint  enfin  un  decret  du  Pape  qui  declara  son  manage  nul.     Marian.  3   29. 

3  In  Livonia,  vir  duas  uxores  vivas  habeat  et  mulier  plures  maritos.  Hen.  in 
Lenfan.  1.  53. 


PROFLIGACY    OF    THE    ROMISH    PRIESTS.  565 

one  and  the  union  with  the  other  were,  according  to  Mariana, 
by  the  express  authority  of  his  holiness.1 

Alexander  was  as  kind  to  Lewis  as  he  had  been  to  Ladislas. 
Lewis,  the  French  king,  disliked  queen  Jeanne,  who,  it  seems, 
was  crooked,  infirm,  barren,  and  deformed.  He  resolved, 
therefore,  on  a  separation,  which,  Daniel  remarks,  was  rather  a 
violent  remedy.  His  majesty,  accordingly,  divorced  Jeanne, 
and  espoused  Ann.  His  infallibility,  in  the  most  obliging  man- 
ner, granted  a  bull  of  dismission  and  a  dispensation  for  the 
desired  union.  His  holiness,  however,  did  not,  on  this  occa- 
sion, work  for  nothing.  Thirty  thousand  ducats;  the  title  and 
duchy  of  Valentino,  with  a  revenue  of  twenty  thousand  pounds; 
the  princess  Charlotta,  sister  to  the  queen  of  Navarre ;  all 
these,  with  a  few  other  trifles,  which  Philip  gave  to  Alexander's 
hopeful  son  Borgia,  were  the  reward  of  iniquity.  The  money 
and  the  dukedom,  Daniel  admits,  facilitated  the  dissolution  of 
marriage.  Guicciardini,  with  more  candour,  represents  these 
considerations  as  the  sole  means  of  attainment.  Lewis,  not- 
withstanding, was,  observes  Moreri,  called  the  just  and  the 
father  of  his  people;  and  has  been  characterized  as  religious, 
chaste,  liberal,  and  the  friend  of  letters.2 

The  laxity  of  Romanism  on  the  one  hand,  and  its  privations 
on  the  other,  introduced  shocking  impurity  into  its  communion. 
The  interdiction  of  marriage,  and  the  connivance  at  concubinage 
in  the  priesthood,  became  the  polluted  fountains  of  multiplied 
abominations,  which  inundated  the  popedom  and  swelled  the 
annals  of  ecclesiastical  history.  The  clergy  forsook  the  sanc- 
tuary of  wedlock  for  the  sty  of  fornication  and  adultery.  Gre- 
gory's enactments,  according  to  Aventinus,  afforded  signal 
gratification  to  the  wandering  votary  of  sensuality,  who,  in  the 
^estlessness  of  unsettled  libertinism,  relinquished  one  woman 
for  the  sake  of  an  hundred.  But  men,  who  were  actuated  by 
conscience  or  a  sense  of  propriety,  regarded  the  innovation  as 
a  pestilential  heresy  which  arose  to  trouble  Christendom.  The 
clergy,  who  resisted  Gregory's  enactments  against  marriage, 
declared  that  the  tendency  of  such  interdictions  was  to  open  the 
flood-gates  of  filthiness,  and  give  the  slackened  reins  to  forni- 
cation and  defilement.  Agrippa,  in  more  modern  days,  draws 
a  similar  picture,  and  represents  whoredom  as  the  necessary 
effect  of  prohibiting  honourable  marriage.  Polydorus,  agreeing 
with  Agrippa  and  Gregory's  clergy,  depicts  celibacy  as  calcu- 
lated to  dishonour  the  priesthood,  injure  religion,  and  grieve 
all  good  men.  Matrimony,  he  remarks,  is  far  more  useful  to 
the  Christian  commonwealth.3 

1  Le  Pape  confirma  par  un  bref  expres  le  divorce  de  Ladislas.     Marian.  5.  29* 

3  Dan.  7.  10.     Guicia.  III.     Bruy.  4.  306.     Moreri,  5.  246. 

3  Aventin.  V.     Labb.  12.  547.     Bruy.  2.  431.     Bayle.  1.  III.     Polyd.  V.  4. 


566  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  : 

These  observations  have  been  verified  by  sacerdotal  profli- 
gacy in  popish  Christendom  ;  as  will  appear  from  the  frightful 
relations  of  Bernard,  Agrippa,  Henry,  Clemangis,  and  Meze- 
ray,  Bernard,  the  saint  of  Clairvaux,  in  the  twelfth  century 
admitted  and  lamented  the  impropriety  of  the  prelacy  and 
priesthood,  '  who  committed,  in  secret,  such  acts  of  turpitude 
as  would  be  shameful  to  express.'1 

Agrippa  accuses  the  prelacy  of  taxing  the  inferior  clergy  for 
liberty  to  violate  the  laws  of  chastity.  A  bishop,  on  one  occa- 
sion, boasted  of  having  in  his  diocese  eleven  thousand  priests, 
who  severally  paid  their  superior,  every  year,  a  guinea  for  leave 
to  keep  concubines.2  Licenses  of  this  kind  indeed  were  com- 
mon in  many  of  the  European  kingdoms.  Compelled  by  the 
enormity  of  the  evil,  the  council  of  Basil,  at  length,  in  its 
twentieth  session,  issued  a  canon  interdicting  such  abomina- 
tions, on  pain  of  excommunication  and  the  eternal  malediction 
of  God.8 

Henry,  a  Viennan  professor  of  theology  and  vice-chancellor 
of  the  Parisian  university,  draws,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  a 
similar  portrait.  His  description,  copied  by  Lenfant,  extends 
to  the  pope,  the  cardinals,  the  bishops,  the  priests,  and  the 
monks.  He  depicted  the  ignorance,  pride,  simony,  and  licen- 
tiousness of  the  pontiff,  the  cardinals,  and  the  prelacy.  The 
priests,  in  his  sketch,  practised  fornication,  and  the  monks  wal- 
lowed in  debauchery.  Cathedrals  became  dens  of  thieves, 
while  monasteries  were  erected  in  taverns  and  places  of 
prostitution.  The  dissipation  of  the  clergy,  in  Henry's  estima- 
tion, caused  the  corruption  of  Christendom  and  the  obduracy 
of  infidels.4 

Clemangis  reckoned  the  adultery,  impurity,  and  obscenity  of 
the  clergy  beyond  all  description.  These  frequented  the  stews 
and  taverns,  and  spent  their  whole  time  in  eating,  drinking, 
revelling,  gaming,  and  dancing.  Surfeited  and  drunk,  these 
sacerdotal  sensualists  fought,  shouted,  roared,  rioted,  and  blas- 
phemed God  and  the  saints  ;  and  passed  shortly  after  from  the 
embrace  of  the  harlot  to  the  altar  of  God.  The  canons,  like 
the  priests,  were  ignorant  and  drunken.  Clemangis,  through 
shame,  drew  the  curtain  over  the  abominations  that  the  nuns 

1  Episcopi  et  sacerdotes  faciunt  quae  non   conveniunt.     Quae  enim  in  occulto 
fiunt  ab  episcopis  turpe  est  dicere.     Bernard  in  Con.     Rhem.  1728. 

2  Legimus  gloriatum  in  convivio  quendum  episcopum  habere  se  undecem  millia 
eacerdotum  concubinariorum,  qui  in  singulos  annos  illi  aureum  pendunt.     Agrippa, 
in  Bayle,  1.  III. 

3  Nonnulli  jurisdictionem  ecclesiasticum  habentes,  pecuniarios  quaestus  concubi- 
nariis  percipere  non  erubescunt,  patientes  eos  in  sua  foeditate  sordescere.    Crabb, 
3.  833.     Daehery,  1.  757.     Bruys,  4.  III. 

4  L&  il  trouve  des  pretres  concubinaires,  ici  des  moines  debauchez,  des  monas- 
tares  erigez  en  cabarets  et  lieux  de  prostitution.     Henry  in  Lenfan.     Pisa,  1.  53. 


SACERDOTAL  PROFLIGACY  IN  ENGLAND,  FRANCE  AND  SPAIN.    667 

practised  in  their  convents,  which  he  called  brothels  of  licen- 
tiousness. To  veil  a  woman  was  in  that  age  to  prostitute  her.1 

Mezeray's  portrait  of  clerical  profligacy,  prior  to  the  reforma- 
tion, is  similar  to  those  of  Bernard,  Agrippa,  Henry,  and  Cle- 
mangis.  The  ecclesiastics,  in  the  statement  of  the  French 
historian,  were  nearly  all  fornicators  and  drunkards.  The 
clergy  held  their  offices  in  taverns,  and  spent  their  money  in 
debauchery.2 

These  general  details  may  be  corroborated  by  a  particular 
retrospect  of  priestly  incontinence,  before  the  rise  of  Protest- 
antism, in  England,  Spain,  Germany,  Switzerland,  France, 
Italy,  and  Peru.  The  accounts  are  furnished,  in  abundance, 
by  the  contemporary  Pcpish  historians  and  councils. 

England,  as  appears  from  the  relations  of  Gildas,  Fordun, 
and  Paris,  drunk  deep  of  the  abominations  flowing  from  sacer- 
dotal celibacy.  Gildas,  in  the  sixth  century,  represents  the 
English  priesthood  as  a  confraternity  of  the  filthiest  fornicators. 
The  British  pastors,  according  to  the  historian's  account,  were 
the  patrons  of  folly  :  and  wallowed,  like  swine,  in  the  sinks  of 
lewdness  and  gluttony.  These  men,  who  should  have  beer 
examples  of  holiness,  were  characterized  by  drunkenness  and 
impudicity.3 

Fordun  has  copied  the  description  of  Edgar  the  English 
sovereign,  from  Ailred  of  Rieval.  This  is  similar  to  the  outline  of 
Gildas.  The  British  monarch,  in  the  tenth  century,  assembled 
the  British  clergy  :  and  in  a  speech  addressed  to  the  full  con- 
vocation, drew  the  frightful  portrait.  These  churchmen,  his 
Majesty  told  them  to  their  face,  were  lascivious  in  dress,  inso- 
lent in  manner,  and  filthy  in  conversation.  The  time  of  these 
heralds  of  the  gospel  was  devoted  to  revels,  inebriation,  de- 
bauchery, and  abomination.  Their  abodes  were  the  haunts  of 
harlots,  and  the  scenes  of  the  play,  the  dance,  and  the  song, 
which,  in  noisy  dissipation,  were  prolonged  till  midnight  or  till 
morning.4 

1  Fornices  et  cauponulas  seduli  frequent,  ut  potando,  commessando,  pransitando, 
coenitando,  tempora  tota  consumunt.     Crapulati  vero  et  inebriati  pugnant,  clamant, 
tumultuantur,  nomen  Dei  et  sanctorum  suorum   pollutissimis  labiis   execrantur; 
sicque  tandem  compositi  ex  meretricum  suarum  complexibus  ad  divinum  altare 
veniunt.     Cleman.  26.     Lenfan.  1.  70. 

Par  pudeur,  il  aime  mieux  tirer  le  rideau  sur  les  abominations,  que  se  commet- 
tent  dans  leurs  convents,  qu'il  appelle  des  bordels  de  Venus.  Aujourdhui  voiler 
une  fille  c'est  la  prostituer.  Bruy.  3.  610,  611. 

2  Us  tenoient  leurs  bureaux  dans  cabarets.     On  voyait  qu'ils  consumoient  en  de- 
bauches une  partie  de  Pargent.     Pasteurs  presque  tous  concubinaires,  ivrognes, 
usuriers.     Mezeray,  4.  490. 

3  Sacerdotes  habet  Britannia,  sed  insipientes,  proprii  plenitudinem  ventris  quae- 
rentes,  et  suas  libidines  votis  omnibus  implere  cupientes,   porcorum   more   volu- 
tantes,  Clerici  impudici,  bilingues,  ebrii.     Gildas,  Ep.  23.  38. 

4  In  veste  lascivia,  insolentia  in  gestu,  in  verbis  turpitude.     Defluunt   in   com- 
essationibus  et  ebrietatibus,  in  cubilibus  et  impudicitiis,  ut  jam  domus  clericorum 
putentur  prostibula  meretricum.     Fordun,  c.  30.     Bruy.  2.  219. 


568  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY  I 

Paris,  in  the  eleventh  century  at  the  accession  of  Gregory 
the  Seventh,  gives  a  report  similar  to  those  of  Gil  das  and  For- 
dun.  He  represents  a  few  as  observers  of  continence.  But  he 
characterizes  the  majority,  as  adding  incontinence  to  perjury 
and  multiplied  ad'ultery.1 

Spain  was  as  defiled  as  England.  This  is  testified  by  many 
historians,  and,  among  others,  by  Alvarus  and  the  councils  of 
Valladolid  and  Toledo.  One  fact,  noticed  by  Alvarus,  a 
Spanish  author  on  this  subject,  conveys  a  striking  idea  of  the 
Spanish  nation  and  priesthood.  The  sons  of  the  Spanish  clergy, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century,  were  in  number 
nearly  equal  to  those  of  the  laity.2  The  ecclesiastics  and  their 
mistresses,  it  seems,  were  sufficiently  prolific.  The  clergy,  in 
all  likelihood,  were  as  successful  in  the  production  of  natural 
progeny  as  of  spiritual  offspring.  These  priests  would  rise 
from  the  harlot's  embrace,  and  proceed,  without  delay  or  even 
confession,  to  the  altar  of  God. 

The  testimony  of  the  council  of  Valladolid,  in  its  seventh 
canon  in  1322,  is  to  the  same  purpose.  The  clergy,  prodigal 
of  character  and  salvation,  led,  according  to  this  assembly,  lives 
of  enormity  and  profligacy  in  public  concubinage.  The  canon 
of  Valladolid  was  renewed  in  1473,  in  the  council  of  Toledo. 
This  synod  represented  the  clergy  as  living  in  the  filthiest 
atrocity,  which  rendered  them  contemptible  to  the  people. 
Some  of  the  priests,  guilty  of  fornication,  feared  not  to  touch  the 
body  of  the  Lord  with  polluted  hands.3 

The  measureless  intemperance  of  the  Spanish  clergy  appears 
in  the  history  of  sacerdotal  and  monkish  SOLICITATION  in  that 
kingdom.  These  solicitors  were  Spanish  monks  and  priests, 
who,  abusing  the  privacy  of  sacramental  confession,  tempted 
women,  married  and  unmarried,  to  a  violation  of  chastity,  and, 
in  the  language  of  pope  Gregory,  f  administered  poison  instead 
of  medicine.'4  This  kind  of  solicitation  became  so  prevalent 
as  to  demand  pontifical  interposition.  Its  notoriety,  accordingly 
challenged  the  interference  of  Pius,  Clement,  Gregory,  Alexan- 
der, and  Benedict,  who  issued  their  bulls  against  this  kind  of 
seduction. 

The  publication  of  the  papal  enactments  showed  the  extent 
of  the  evil.  The  execution  of  the  Roman  mandates  was  con- 

1  Faucis  continentiam  observantibus,  multis  incontinentiam  perjurio  multiplicion 
adulterio  cumulantibus.  Paris.  8. 

3  On  voit  presque  autant  d'enfans  de  clercs  que  de  laiques.  Us  se  levent  d'au 
pres  de  leurs  concubines  pour  aller  a  1'autel.  Bruy.  3.  308.  Alvar.  11.  27. 

3  Clericorum  nonnulli  famae  suae  prodigi  et  salutis,  in  concubinatu  publico  vitam 
ducunt  enormiter  dissolutam.     Labb.  15.   247.     Christi  corpus,  sacerdos  pollutii 
manibus  tractare  non  formidat.     Labb.  19.  389.     Bin.  8.  957. 

4  Pro  medicina,  venenum  porrigunt.     Dent  3.412,413,   et  6.  292,   293.     Bull. 
Cher.  3.  432 


SACERDOTAL    PROFLIGACY   IN    GERMANY.  569 

signed  to  the  inquisitors,  who  summoned  the  attendance,  at  the 
holy  office,  of  all  that  could  inform  against  the  guilty.  The 
terror  of  the  inquisition  commanded  obedience.  Maids  and 
matrons  of  the  nobility  and  peasantry,  of  every  rank  and  situa- 
tion, crowded  to  the  inquisition.  Modesty  and  shame  induced 
many  to  go  veiled.  The  alarm  awakened  jealousy  in  the  mind 
of  many  husbands.  The  fair  informers  in  Seville  alone  were, 
according  to  Gonsalvus  and  Lorente,  so  numerous,  that  all  the 
inquisitors  and  twenty  notaries  were  insufficient  in  thirty  days, 
to  take  their  depositions.  Thirty  additional  days  had,  three 
several  times,  to  be  appointed  for  the  reception  of  informations. 
But  the  multitude  of  criminals,  the  jealousy  of  husbands,  and 
the  odium  which  the  discovery  threw  on  auricular  confession 
and  the  popish  priesthood,  caused  the  sacred  tribunal  to  quash 
the  prosecution,  and  to  consign  the  depositions  to  oblivion.1 

The  German  clergy  were  as  debauched  as  those  of  Spain  or 
England.  Their  overflowing  and  unrestricted  licentiousness 
appears  with  transparent  evidence  in  the  unsuspicious  testimony 
of  German  councils,  princes,  emperors,  and  clergy. 

A  German  council,  in  1225,  accused  the  priesthood  of  un- 
chastity,  voluptuousness,  and  obscenity.  Some,  addicted  to 
filthy  enjoyments,  lived  in  open  and  avowed  concubinage.  Some 
of  the  clergy  as  well  as  the  laity  committed  incest  with  the  holy 
nuns,  and  *  wallowing  in  sensuality,  plunged,  with  slackened 
reins,  into  the  lake  of  misery  and  mud  of  filthiness.'2 

The  council  of  Cologne,  in  1536,  characterized  the  monas- 
teries, which  had  formerly  been  the  schools  of  virtue  and  the 
hospitals  of  the  poor,  as  the  taverns  of  soldiers  and  ravagers. 
The  nunneries,  according  to  the  same  authority,  had,  to  say  no 
worse,  become  the  alleged  scenes  of  incontinency.  Another 
council  of  Cologne,  in  15^9,  convicted  the  clergy  of  concubin- 
age and  the  monks  of  whoredom.  The  sacred  synod  then 
prescribed  a  course  of  penance  to  the  holy  fornicators, '  to  mortify 
the  petulance  of  the  flesh.'3 

Albert  Duke  of  Bavaria,  in  1562,  by  Augustine  his  ambassa- 
dor, depicted  in  glowing  colours  before  the  council  of  Trent,  the 
licentiousness  of  the  German  priesthood.  The  contagion  of 
heresy,  the  ambassador  said,  had,  on  account  of  sacerdotal  pro- 
fligacy, pervaded  the  people  of  Bavaria  even  to  the  nobility. 
A  recital  of  clerical  criminality  would  wound  the  ear  of  chastity. 

1Gonsal.  185.     Lorent.  355.     Limborch,  111.  17. 

2  Nonnulli  clerici  lumbos  suos  cingulo  continentiae,  ut  accipimus,  non  prsecingunt. 
Bin.  8.  834,  83J5.     Obscoenis  voluptatibus  inhiantes,  concubinas  usque  ad  haec  tem- 
pora  publice  tenuerunt.     Quidam  relaxatis  voluptatum  habems  in  iacum  miseria 
et  in  lutum  fsecis  se  immergunt.     Labb.  13.  1095.  1098. 

3  In  diversoria  militum  et  raptorum.     In  suspectas  de  incontinentia  domes  esse 
commutata.     Labb.  19.  1280,  1384. 


570  THE    VARIATIONS    OP    POPERY: 

Debauchery  had  covered  the  ecclesiastics  with  infamy.  An 
hundred  priests,  so  general  was  the  contagion,  could  hardly 
muster  three  or  four  who  obeyed  the  injunctions  of  chastity.1 
The  French  applauded  the  ambassador's  speech.  The  council 
also,  by  its  promoter,  joined  in  the  French  eulogy,  and  styled 
the  Duke  of  Bavaria  the  bulwark  of  the  popedom. 

The  emperor  Ferdinand,  though  without  success,  applied  to 
the  Pope  in  1564,  for  a  repeal  of  the  laws  against  sacerdotal 
matrimony.  Maximilian  also,  with  many  of  the  German 
princes,  importuned  Pius  the  fourth  for  the  same  purpose.  The 
reason,  urged  by  the  emperor  was  the  profligacy  of  the  priest- 
hood. His  majesty  declared  that  among  many  of  the  clergy, 
scarcely  one  could  be  found  who  lived  in  chastity.  All,  with 
hardly  an  exception,  were  public  fornicators,  to  the  greatest 
danger  of  souls  and  scandal  of  the  people.2  A  repeal  of  clerical 
celibacy  Maximilian  stated,  would  gratify  the  populace  of 
Bavaria,  Bohemia,  Silesia,  Moravia,  Austria,  Carinthia,  Carniola, 
and  Hungary.  All  these  vast  regions  would  have  rejoiced  in 
the  restoration  of  marriage  among  the  clergy. 

The  emperor's  application  was  supported  by  the  popish  priest- 
hood of  Germany.  These,  in  maintenance  of  their  petition, 
alleged  various  reasons.  The  frailty  of  man  ;  the  difficulty  of 
abstinence ;  the  strength  of  the  passion  that  prompts  to  mar- 
riage ;  the  permission  of  clerical  wedlock  by  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  under  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations ;  its 
use  with  few  exceptions,  by  the  Apostles  ;  the  instructions  of 
Dionysius  to  Pinytus ;  the  decision  of  the  Nicene  council  sug- 
gested by  Paphnutius  ;  the  usage  of  the  Greeks  and  Latins  in 
the  East  and  West  till  the  popedom  of  Calixtus  ;  all  these  argu- 
ments, the  German  ecclesiastics  urged  for  the  lawfulness  of 
sacerdotal  matrimony.  A  second  reason  the  Germans  deduced 
from  clerical  profligacy.  Fifty  priests,  these  churchmen  con- 
fessed, could  with  difficulty  afford  one,  who  was  not  a  notorious 
fornicator,  to  the  offence  of  the  people  aud  the  injury  of  piety.3 
Sacerdotal  logic  and  learning,  however,  were  unavailing,  when 
weighed  against  pontifical  policy  and  ecclesiastical  utility. 

Switzerland  was  the  scene  of  similar  profligacy.  One  fact 
will  sufficiently  mark  the  state  of  this  country.  The  Swiss,  prior 
to  the  Reformation,  compelled  every  priest  to  take  a  concubine 
of  his  own,  lest  he  should  attempt  the  chastity  of  virgins  or 

1  Dotit  il  ne  pouroit  raconter  les  crimes  sans  blesser  les  oreilles  chastes  de  son 
auditpire.  Le  clerge  s'etoit  rendu  infame  par  son  impudicite.  De  cent  pretres,  i! 
a'en  trouvoit  a  peine  trois  on  quatre  qui  n'entretinssent  tine  concubine.  Paol.  2. 
217.  Du  Pin,  3.  551. 

3  Vix  inter  multos  unus  reperiatur,  qui  castum  coelibatum  pra?stat :  nam  omne* 
fere  publicos  esse  scortatores.  Thuan.  2.  417.  Bruy.  4.  681.  Gabutius,  21. 

3  De  cinqnant  pr&tres  Catholiques,  a  peine  s'en  trouvoit  il  uu  qui  ue  fut  notoireraent 
ooncubinaire.  Paol.  2.  680,  681  Thuan.  XXXVI.  38- 


PROFLIGACY    OF    THE    ROMAN    CLERGY.  571 

matrons.  Scandalous  indeed  must  have  been  the  incontinence 
of  the  Swiss  clergy,  when  the  cantons  were  necessitated  to  use 
such  a  remedy  for  protecting  women  of  character. 

A  fact  of  a  similar  kind  is  mentioned  by  Clemangis.  The 
laity  tolerated  the  clergy  only  on  condition  of  their  keeping  con- 
cubines.2 This  caution  was  suggested  by  the  married  women, 
who,  protected  even  by  this  expedient,  were  not  -wholly  out  of 
danger. 

The  French  clergy  were  as  debauched  as  those  of  England, 
Spain,  Germany,  and  Switzerland.  All  the  French  ecclesiastics 
according  to  Mezeray's  relation,  were  in  a  state  of  extreme  ir- 
regularity. The  majority  had  concubines.  Some  of  the  deacons 
entertained  four  or  five  of  these  female  companions.  The  nuns 
kept  neither  their  cloisters  nor  their  vows.3 

The  Italian  and  Roman  clergy  appear,  of  all  others,  to  have 
been  the  most  licentious.  This,  in  the  tenth  century,  was 
stated  in  emphatical  language  by  Ratherius  bishop  of  Verona. 
Arnolf,  who  was  an  excellent  preacher  of  righteousness,  says 
Platina,  was,  in  the  popedom  of  Honorius,  murdered  at  Rome 
by  the  agency  of  the  priestoood,  because  he  inveighed  against 
their  incontinence  and  sensuality.4 

A  select  council  of  cardinals  and  bishops  assembled  by  Paul 
the  Third,  in  1538,  have  drawn  a  picture  of  the  Roman  courte- 
zans, and  the  attention  paid  them  by  the  Roman  clergy.  These 
courtezans  lived  in  splendid  palaces,  walked  or  rode  as  matrons 
through  the  city,  and  were  attended  at  noon-day  by  a  train  of 
the  clergy  and  the  nobility  the  friends  of  the  cardinals.5  The 
Roman  priesthood,  in  this  manner,  made  a  public  exhibition  of 
their  filthiness  and  infamy. 

The  Roman  pontiffs  were  often  as  filthy  as  their  clergy,  and 
exemplified  every  specie^  of  licentiousness  and  pollution.  Some 
of  these  hierarchs  licensed  stews,  and  raised  a  tax  on  these  houses 
of  iniquity.  These  vicegerents  of  heaven  exacted  a  tribute  foi 
the  permission  of  impurity.  The  pope's  marshal,  in  many 
instances,  received  a  revenue  from  the  Roman  courtezans  ;  and 
enriched  the  sacred  treasury  with  the  wages  of  prostitution. 

1  Un  ancien  edit  etoit  donne  par  leurs  predecesseurs  pour obliger  tous  les  pretres  a 
avoir  leur  propre  concubine,  et  les  empecher  par  la  d'attenter  la  pudeur  des  honndtes 
femmes.     Paol.  1.  32. 

2  Laici  non  aliter  velint  presbyterum  tolerare,  nisi  concubinam  habeat.     Cleman. 
De  Praesul.  168.     Bayle,  2.  1392. 

3  Tout  le  clerge  etoit  dans  un  extreme  dereglement.     La  pluspart  avoient  des 
concubines.     II  se  trouvoit  des  diacres  qui  en  entretenoient  jusqu'a  quatre  ou 
cinque.     Les  religieuses  n'observoient  ni  leur  cloture  ni  leurs  voeux.     Mezeray, 
1.  263. 

*  Dachery,  1.  354.     Platina  in  Hon.  2.     Bruy.  2.  208.     Du  Pin,  2.  165. 

6  In  hac  etiam  urbe,  meretrices,  ut  matronae  incedunt  per  urbem,  sen  mula  ve 
huntur,  quas  assectantur  de  media  die  nobiles  familiares  cardinalium  clericique. 
Habitant  etiam  insignes  aedes.  Crabb.  3.  823.  Coss.  5.  547. 


572  THE    VARIATIONS  OF    POPERY  I 

Some  of  the  pontiffs  converted  the  Roman  court  into  a  scene  of 
pollution.  The  Lateran  palace,  which  had  been  a  sanctuary, 
became  a  brothel.1 

A  John,  a  Boniface,  a  Sixtus,  an  Alexander,  a  Julius,  and  a 
Leo  were  notorious  for  adultery,  incest,  or  the  sin  of  Sodom. 
A  Roman  council  convicted  John  the  Twelfth  of  adultery  and 
incest.  His  holiness  committed  incest  with  two  sisters.  John 
the  Twelfth  was  imitated,  in  the  career  of  miscreancy,  by  John 
the  Twenty-third,  as  well  as  by  Boniface,  Sixtus,  Alexander, 
Julius,  and  Leo.2 

Gregory,  who  perfected  the  system  of  sacerdotal  celibacy, 
disobeyed  his  own  laws.  His  infallibility  excelled  in  the  theory 
of  chastity  rather  than  in  the  practice,  and  could  prescribe  to 
others  more  easily  than  to  himself.  He  was  openly  accused  of 
fornication,  adultery,  and  incest.  The  council  of  Mentz  took 
the  liberty  of  calling  his  holiness  a  fornicator.  Many,  both  of 
the  clergy  and  laity,  reckoned  the  Vicar-General  of  God  guilty 
of  incest  with  Matilda,  princess  of  Tuscany,  after  her  repudiation 
from  Godfrey  duke  of  Lorrain.  Binius  admits  the  notoriety  of 
the  report,  though,  without  an^good  reason,  he  denies  its  truth. 
Maimbourg,  in  modern  days,  acknowledges  Matilda's  impru- 
dence in  her  devotion  to  Gregory,  who  styled  the  princess  his 
dear  daughter.3 

Priestly  profligacy  crossed  the  Atlantic,  and  appeared  in 
America  as  well  as  on  the  European  continent.  The  debauch- 
ery of  the  Peruvian  priesthood  has  been  described  in  glowing 
colours  by  Ulloa ;  and  the  picture  is  frightful.  Frailty,  remarks 
this  candid  author,  accompanies  man  in  every  nation  of  the 
earth  ;  but  seems,  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  to  have  debased 
the  monks  and  clergy  of  Peru,  who  surpass  every  other  class  in 
sensuality  and  libertinism.  The  men,  who,  in  this  country, 
should  be  examples  of  holiness,  have  degenerated  into  patterns 
of  impurity,  Concubinage  flourishes  and  fattens  among  these 
professors  of  abstinence.  Ulloa  mentions  many  instances  of  this 
enormity  in  the  Peruvian  ecclesiastics.  One  priest,  among  the 
rest,  celebrated  mass  in  patriarchal  style  :  while  his  fifth  mis- 
tress was  seated  in  the  church.  He  was  assisted  at  the  altar  by 
one  son,  while  a  brood  of  his  spurious  Children  witnessed  the 
august  ceremony.4 

1  Son  Marechal  tiroit  un  tribnt  des  femmes  prostitutees.    Bruy.  3.  374.  et  2.  244. 

Lateranense  palatium,  sanctorum  quondam  hospitium,  nunc  eat  prostibulum  mere- 
tricum.  Luitprand.  VI.  Labb.  11.  881. 

3  Viduam  Rainarii  et  Stephanam  et  Annam  viduam  cum  nepte  BUS,  abusum  esse 
Labb.  11.  881,  882.  Thuan.  1.  215.  Platina,  132. 

3  Pontifex  Mathildis  complexibus  furtivis  frueretur.  Bin.  7.  309.  Lebb.  12.  232 
272.  Un  peu  moins  de  prudence  et  de  discretion,  qu'elle  ne  devoid  Maimbourg 
Decad.  244.  Spon.  1074.  IV. 

*  Ulloa,  449,  503.     Quar.  Rev.  70.  330. 


PROFLIGACY  OF  THE  COUNCILS  OF  CONSTANCE  AND  BASIL.  573 

General  councils,  as  well  as  Romish  pontiffs  and  popish 
priests,  outraged  the  laws,  not  indeed  of  celibacy,  but  of  absti- 
nence. This  was  exemplified  in  the  universal  councils  of  Lyons, 
Constance,  and  Basil.  The  council  of  Lyons  demoralized  the 
city  in  which  it  was  convened.  Cardinal  Hugo,  in  a  speech  to 
the  citizens  immediately  after  the  dissolution  of  the  sacred  synod 
boasted  that  Lyons,  at  the  meeting  of  the  assembly,  contained 
two  or  three  stews  ;  but  at  its  departure,  comprehended  only 
one  ;  which,  however,  extended  without  interruption  from  the 
eastern  to  the  western  gate.1  The  sacred  convention,  by  the 
perpetration  of  licentiousness,  converted  the  whole  city  into  one 
vast,  fermenting,  pestilential,  overflowing  sink  of  accumulated 
pollution.  The  holy  fathers,  it  appears,  were  men  of  business 
and  industry,  and  did  not  confine  their  valuable  labours  to  the 
study  of  musty  theology. 

The  general  council  of  Constance  imitated  the  incontinence 
practised  at  Lyons.  Seven  hundred  public  or  common  women 
followed  in  the  train  of  the  Constantian  fathers.  The  Vienrian 
manuscript  augments  the  number  of  these  female  attendants, 
whom  it  calls  vagrant  strumpets,  to  fifteen  hundred.2  This  was 
a  reasonable  supply  for  the  thousand  learned  divines  that  com- 
posed the  infallible  assembly.  The  procuring  of  these  ladies, 
who,  no  doubt,  were  trained  to  their  profession,  showed  the 
sacred  synod's  provident  foresight  as  well  as  their  good  taste. 
Constance  might  not  have  afforded  a  competent  supply  ;  and, 
therefore,  the  thoughtful  theologians,  mindful  of  their  own  com- 
fort, imported  a  few  hundreds  of  the  sex.  The  sacerdotal  forni- 
cators,  it  seems,  were  very  liberal  to  these  professional  ladies. 
One  courtezan,  it  is  said,  gained  eight  hundred  florins,  an  im- 
mense sum  in  those  days.3  She  was  treated  very  differently 
from  John  Huss.  The  reverend  debauchees  enriched  the  pros- 
titute and  burned  the  reformer.  These  fair  companions  evinced 
the  holy  men's  relish  for  spiritual  enjoyments,  and  refreshed  the 
infallible  doctors  at  night,  after  being  exhausted  during  the 
day,  by  making  speeches  in  the  council  and  burning  the 
heretics  Huss  and  Jerome. 

The  general  council  of  Basil  taught  the  theory  of  filthiness, 
as  those  of  Lyons  and  Constance  had  displayed  the  practice 
Carle ry.  the  champion  of  Catholicism  in  this  assembly  against 
Nicholas  the  Bohemian  heretic,  advocated  the  propriety  of  per- 
mitting brothels  in  a  city.  The  speculation,  the  hero  of  the 
faith  maintained  by  the  authority  of  the  sainted  Jerome, 

1  M.  Paris,  702. 

3Mulieres  communes  quas  reperi  in  domibus  DCC.     Labb.  16.  1436.     Bruys,  4. 
39.     Item  XVC  meretrices  vagabundae.     Labb.  16.  1435. 

3  Item  dicitur  quod  una  meretrix  lucrata  est  VIIIC  florenos.     Labb.  16.  1436. 


574  THE    VARIATIONS    OF    POPERY. 

Augustine,  Thomas,  and  Gregory.  Simple  fornication,  the  sage 
and  precious  divine  discovered,  does  not  disturb  the  common- 
wealth ;  and  the  populace,  addicted  to  voluptuousness  and  plea- 
sure, are  unwilling  to  abstain.  He  concluded,  therefore,  by  the 
most  logical  deduction,  that  stews  are  to  be  tolerated  in  a  city. 
This  theory  the  holy  fathers  heard  witn  silent  approbation.  The 
vile  atrocity  therefore  was  sanctioned  by  the  holy,  unerring, 
apostolic,  Roman  council.1 

1  Per  simplicem  fornicationem  non  turbatur  politia,  nee  plebium  multitudnem 
huibus,  deliciis,  voluptatibus  deditam,  facile  eet  abstinere.  Labb.  17  980.  988. 
Ganiflius,  4.  457. 


INDEX. 


ABBAS,  the  Persian  monarch,  invites  the  Armenians  to  settle  in  his 
dominions,  62. 

Abgarus,  king  of  Edessa,  Syrian  legend  on  the  portrait  of  Jesus 
sent  to,  467. 

Abyssinians,  a  branch  of  the  Monophysites,  disbelieve  any  commix- 
ture of  Deity  and  humanity  in  the  Son  of  God,  62. 

Acacius,  signal  cursing-match  between  him  and  Felix,  331. 

Acceptants,  a  faction  of  the  French  clergy,  who  received  the  Bull 
"  Unigenitus,"  375. 

Act  of  Faith,  what,  261. 

Adhelm,  Bp.  of  Sherburn,  remedies  of,  to  preserve  himself  con- 
tinent, 538. 

Adrian  IV.  [Nicolas  Brekespere]  pope,  1154.  A  striking  example 
of  the  vicissitudes  of  human  life,  221 — his  actions,  ib. — his  reply 
to  Henry  the  Second,  who  had  requested  his  permission  to  invade 
Ireland,  ib. — transfers  Ireland  to  Henry,  222. 

Adultery,  or  bigamy,  permitted  to  the  laity,  563. 

JEgidius,  his  account  of  the  immorality  of  the  Romish  Church,  203. 

^Elurus,  partizan  of  Monophysitism,  substituted  for  Proterios  as 
patriarch  of  Alexandria,  328,  banished  to  Cherson,  but  restored, 
and  poisons  himself,  ib. 

African  clergy,  enact  eight  canons  against  Pelagianism,  359 — their 
firmness  the  means  of  ^preventing  the  Pelagian  theology  from 
becoming  the  faith  of  Christendom,  ib. 

Agobard,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  recommends  the  destruction  of 
images  rather  than  their  adoration,  486. 

Agricola  accompanies  Luther  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 

Aidv,  signification  of  the  term,  502. 

Albani  (J.  F.)  see  Clement  XI. 

Albert,  Duke  of  Bavaria,  his  picture  of  the  licentiousness  of  the 
German  priesthood,  569. 

Albigensianism  :  often  unjustly  accused  oi  Manicheanism  and  Arian- 
ism,  49 — vindicated  from  this  slander  by  Moreri,  ib. 

Albigensians  :  a  branch  of  the  Waldensians,  50 — untainted  with  the 
Manichean  or  Arian  heresy,  ib. — outline  of  their  theology  contained 
in  a  Treatise  on  Antichrist  written  in  1120,  ib. — how  confounded 
with  the  Manicheans  and  Arians,  51 — number  of,  equipped  against 
the  Crusaders,  53 — massacre  of,  by  the  holy  warriors,  257. 


576  INDEX. 

Alcala,  University  of,  vouches  for  the  Catholicism,  &c.  of  Molinism 
367. 

Alcoran,  see  Koran. 

Alexander,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  ascribes  consubstantiality  and 
equality  to  the  Son,  297 — is  opposed  by  Arms,  ib. — admonishes 
Arius,  but  finding  him  obstinate,  convenes  a  council  who  expel 
him  and  his  faction,  298. 

Alexander  V.  [Philarge]  pope  1409,  elected  by  the  French  and 
Italian  cardinals,  90. 

Alexander  VI.  [Roderic  Borgia  or  Lenzuoli]  pope  1491,  surpasses 
all  his  predecessors  in  atrocity,  117 — dies  by  a  stratagem  which 
he  had  prepared  for  the  murder  of  his  friends,  118. 

Alexander  VII.  pope  1599,  prescribes  a  formulary  respecting 
Jansenism,  372. 

Algerus,  reason  suggested  by,  for  the  manner  in  which  the  Lord's 
body  is  administered  in  the  sacrament,  423. 

Alliaco,  Card,  his  description  of  the  moral  traits  of  the  14th  and 
15th  centuries,  203. 

Altieri,  Emilius,  see  Clement  X. 

Alva,  Duke  of,  causes  eighteen  thousand  persons  to  be  executed  in 
six  weeks  for  the  crime  of  Protestantism,  267. 

Amadeus,  Duke  of  Savoy,  after  forty  years,  resigns  his  ducal 
administration  to  his  sons,  95 — retires  to  his  villa  of  Ripaille,  ib — 
a  deputation  sent  to  him  conveying  the  triple  crown,  which  with 
reluctance  he  accepts,  ib. 

Ambrosius,  St.  recommends  suicide,  550. 

Ammianus,  his  description  of  the  affluence  and  ostentation  of  the 
Roman  pontiff,  213. 

Amurath,  Sultan,  defeats  Ladislaus,  king  of  Hungary,  who  had  been 
induced  by  Eugenius  IV.  to  break  his  treaty  with  him,  283 — 
displays  a  copy  of  the  violated  treaty  in  the  front  of  the  battle,  ib. 

Anabaptism  :  opposed  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  34 — also  by  the  Swiss, 
French,  English,  and  Scottish  Reformers,  ib. 

Anacletus,  or  Cletus,  succeeds  Linus  in  the  Roman  episcopacy,  70 — 
but  doubtful  whether  Anacletus  and  Cletus  were  identical  or 
distinct,  73. 

Anastasius,  excommunicated  for  heresy  by  Symmachus,  328. 

Angelo,  Cardinal,  declaration  of,  that  the  sacramental  wine,  if  ad- 
ministered to  laymen,  is  poison  rather  than  medicine,  436. 

Anointing  the  sick,  scriptural  end  of,  450. 

Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  remarks  on,  47. 

Antiquity,  in  the  aostract,  no  criterion  of  truth,  45 — papal  su- 
premacy unknown  to,  174. 

Antitrinitarians,  several  factions  of,  299. 

Antonius,  his  picture  of  the  sixteenth  century,  204. 

Apostles  :  founded  and  organized  churches,  and  then  consigned 
their  superintendency  to  fixed  pastors,  70 — word  '  apostles '  inter- 
preted by  some  theologians  to  signify  '  the  rock,'  162. 

Apostles'  Creed,  general  reception  of  in  Christendom,  47. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  his  opinion  on  transubstantiation,  411 — methods 
adopted  by  him,  to  preserve  himself  continent,  536. 


INDEX.  577 

Arbitration,  proposed  as  a  means  for  the  extinction  of  the  schism  in 
the  papacy,  86. 

Arianism  :  patronized  by  Liberius,  and  by  the  councils  of  Sirmium, 
Selucia,  and  Ariminum,  34 — also  by  Zosimus  and  Honorius,  102 
— heresy  originated  in  Alexandria,  297 — its  prevalence,  308. 

Ariminum,  council  of,  its  meeting  and  proceedings,  305-6. 

Aristotelian  philosophy,  why  it  facilitated  the  reception  of  transub- 
stantiation,  405. 

Arms,  the  first  innovator  on  the  faith  of  antiquity,  whose  error 
obtained  extensive  circulation,  or  was  attended  whli  important 
consequences,  297 — masterly  portrait  of  him  by  Epiphanius,  ib. — 
is  expelled  from  the  church  by  a  council  convened  by  Alexander 
the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  goes  to  Palestine,  29*8. 

Aries,  synod  of,  hostile  to  consubstantiality,  300, 

Armenians  :  scattered  through  Armenia,  Cappadocia,  Cilicia,  Syria, 
Persia,  India,  Cyprus,  Poland,  Turkey,  Transylvania,  Hungary 
and  Russia,  62 — their  merchants  distinguished  for  industry,  fru- 
gality, activity,  and  opulence,  ib. — have  repelled  Mahometan  and 
Romish  superstition  beyond  all  the  Christians  in  Central  Asia,  63 
— their  faith  a  transcript  of  biblical  purity,  ib. — invited  by  Abbas, 
the  Persian  monarch,  to  settle  in  his  dominions,  62. 

Arnold  (Ant.)  endeavors  to  prove  the  antiquity  of  transubstantiatton, 
406 — remark  on  this  attempt,  ib. 

Arnolf,  a  preacher  at  Rome,  murdered  by  the  agency  of  the  priest- 
hood, because  he  inveighed  against  their  incontinence  and 
sensuality,  571. 

Ass,  absurd  Festival  of,  celebrated  at  Beauvais  in  Burgundy,  43. 

Assassination,  approbation  of,  by  Jerome,  and  Amorosius,  549-50. 

Astolf,  king  of  Lombardy,  forms  the  project  of  subduing  Italy,  214 
— defeated  by  Pepin,  and  compelled  to  fulfil  his  treaty  with 
Stephen  II.  ik, 

Athanasian  Creed :  its  general  reception  in  Christendom,  47. 

Athanasius,  supremacy  bestowed  on  him  by  Gregory  and  others, 
174 — compelled  to  appear  before  the  Tyrian  council,  299 — vin- 
dicates his  innocence  and  exposes  the  injustice  of  the  council, 
ib. — is  rescued  by  the  soldiery  and  escapes,  but  is  excommuni- 
cated and  banished,  ib. 

Atheism,  displayed  in  the  lives  of  the  Roman  hieraichs  of  ^the 
middle  and  succeeding  ages,  108. 

Augsburg  or  Augustan  Confession,  the  production  of  Melancthon, 
reviewed  by  Luther,  presented  in  1530  to  the  Emperor  of 
Germany,  26 — became  the  standard  of  Lutheranism  through 
Germany,  Denmark,  Sweden,  and  Norway,  ib. 

Augustin,  St.  taught  the  doctrine  of  gratuitous  predestination,  362 
— seems  to  have  been  the  first  Christian  author,  who  entertained 
the  idea  of  purifying  the  soul  while  the  body  lay  in  the  tomb, 
517 — remarks  on  his  works,  517-18. 

"  Augustine,"  a  work  so  called,  published  by  Jansenius,  object  of,  369. 

Auto  da  Fe,  see  Faith,  post. 

37 


578  INDEX. 

Averroes,  his  opinion  of  Christians,  421. 

Avignon  :  removal  of  the  papal  court  from,  by  Gregory,  XI.  81. 

B 

Bailly  (L.)  ascribes  to  the  church  a  power  of  dispensing  in  vows 
and  oaths,  278. 

Baptism  :  errors  on  the  subject  of,  101 — validity  of,  on  what  it 
depends  according  to  the  Romish  system,  102 — same  change 
ascribed  to  the  water  of,  as  to  the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  403. 

Baptista  :  his  portrait  of  the  Constantine  council,  199. 

Barbarossa,  Emperor,  compelled  to  officiate  as  equerry  to  Adrian 
IV.  221. 

Barsumas,  a  Syrian,  active  in  the  assassination  of  Flavian,  318. 

Barthelemi  de  Prignano,  see  Urban  VI. 

Bartholomew,  massacre  on  St.  Bartholomew's  day,  270 — not  con- 
fined to  Paris,  but  extended  in  general  through  the  French 
nation,  271 — medals  coined  to  perpetuate  its  memory.  272 — 
approved  by  the  pope  and  the  Roman  court,  ib. — Spain  rejoices 
in  the  tragedy,  ib. 

Basil,  council  of,  decrees  the  superiority  of  a  general  council  to  a 
pope,  94 — and  the  obligation  of  all  to  obey  the  ••ynodal  authority 

.  in  questions  of  faith,  schism,  &c.  ib. — two  bulls  of  dissolution 
issued  against  it  by  Eugenius,  ib. — new  dissensions  between 
them,  ib. — deposes  Condalmerio,  ib. — appoints  Amadeus,  Duke 
of  Savoy,  95 — recognized  by  the  French  school  as  generfcj,  134 
— declaimed  against  by  some,  ib. — called  by  Leo  X.  a  conventicle, 
135 — acknowledges  that  half-communion  is  an  innovation,  433 — 
inconsistency  of,  with  itself,  437 — profligacy  of,  573. 

Basiliscus,  emperor  of  Constantinople,  both  denounces  and  patronizes 
the  synod  of  Chalcedon,  327 — is  driven  from  the  imperialfdignity 
by  Zeno,  and  banished  to  Cappadocia,  where  he  dies  of  hunger 
and  cold,  328. 

Beata,  of  Cuenza  in  Spain,  aspires  to  the  celebrity  of  a  Roman 
saint,  34— invents  a  most  extraordinary  fiction,  ib. — declaring  that 
her  body  was  transubstantiated  into  the  substance  of  our  Lord's, 
ib. — this  absurdity  divides  the  Spanish  priests  and  monks,  ib. — 
procession  of  her  through  the  streets,  accompanied  with  prostra- 
tion and  burning  of  incense,  35. 

Bede,  Venerable,  remark  of,  on  the  unction  of  the  sick   453. 

Belgic  confession,  see  Dutch  confession. 

Belisarius,  suborned  by  the  empress  Theodora,  and  bribed  by 
Vigilius,  to  expel  Silverius  from  the  papal  chair,  77. 

Bellarmine,  (Rob.)  his  distinctions  and  decisions  badly  calculated  to 
establish  the  authority  of  councils,  124 — affirms  that  the  Pope 
can  transubstantiate  sin  into  duty,  and  duty  into  sin,  159 — urges 
the  eradication  of  heretics,  when  it  can  be  effected  with  safety,  263. 

Benedict,  St.  his  remedy  to  preserve  himself  continent,  537. 

Benedict  VI.  [SOB  of  Hildebrand]  pope,  973,  strangled  by  Crewcen- 
tius,  110. 


INDEX.  679 

Benedict  VII.  Pope  (975)  substituted  by  universal  suffrage  in  the 
stead  of  Boniface  VII.,  Ill — holds  the  papacy  nine  years,  ib. 

Benedict  [XI.  Theophylactus]  promoted  in  1033  to  the  papacy  by 
simony,  79 — in  1044  is  expelled  by  a  Roman  faction,  ib. — is 
restored,  ib. — resigns  the  papacy  to  John  for  15QQL  and  retires, 
80 — weary,  however,  of  privacy,  he  renews  his  claim,  and  seizes 
by  dint  of  arms  on  the  Lateran,  ib. 

Benno,  cardinal,  his  character  of  Gregory  the  Seventh,  111. 

Berengarius,  allowed  by  Gregory  VIII  to  profess  that  the  bread 
and  wine  of  the  altar  after  consecration  are  the  true  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord,  31— opposes  Pascasius,  409 — Berengarian 
controversy,  411. 

Bernard,  St.  affirms  that  none,  except  God,  is  like  the  Pope,  either 
in  heaven  or  on  earth,  157. 

Bernardin,  his  adventure  with  a  female  citizen  of  Sienna,  39. 

Bertrand  cle  Got,  see  Clement  V. 

Bertram  replies  to  Pascasius,  407 — different  treatment  which  his 
work  received,  ib. 

Bethesda,  pool  of,  remarks  on,  448. 

Beziers,  storming  of,  256. 

Bible,  forbidden  to  the  laity,  by  the  council  of  Tolosa,  250. 

Biel,  cardinal,  opinion  of,  on  the  creation  of  the  Creator,  as  implied 
in  transubstantiation,  419,  420. 

Bigamy,  allowed  by  Gregory  the  Second,  561. 

Bohemian  Confession,  presented  in  1535  to  the  emperor  Ferdinand 
by  the  nobility  of  Bohemia,  26. 

Bohorquia,  a  victim  of  the  inquisition,  267. 

Bonaparte,  excommunicated  and  anathematized  by  Pius  the 
Seventh,  235. 

Boniface,  VII.  (Francon)  seizes  the  papal  chair  in  974,  having  mur- 
dered his  predecessor  and  successor,  110 — is  deposed  and 
expelled,  ib. — replaced  on  the  pontifical  throne  by  bribing  his 
partizans,  ib. — imprisons  John  XIV.  who  had  succeeded  during 
his  absence,  in  the  castle  of  Angelo,  where  he  dies  of  starvation, 
111 — his  body  exposed  ^y  Boniface,  ib. — dies  suddenly,  and  his 
body  dragged  with  indignity  through  the  streets,  ib. 

Boniface  VIII.  [Cardinal  Cajetan]  pope,  1294,  forms  a  plan  to  induce 
Celestin  to  resign,  succeeds,  and  is  chosen  in  his  stead,  113 — 
imprisons  him,  ib. — his  character,  114 — taught  the  necessity  of 
submission  to  the  pontiff  for  the  attainment  of  salvation,  155. 

Borgia,  see  Alexander  VI. 

Bossuet,  (J.  B.)  bishop  of  Meaux,  his  misrepresentation  of  Protest- 
anism,  25 — eulogises  the  Helvetian  Confession  of  faith,  ib. 

Brazen  serpent,  remark  on,  461,  462. 

"  Breaking  of  Bread,"  phrase,  as  used  by  St.  Luke,  remark  on,  429. 

Brekespere,  (Nicholas)  see  Adrian  IV. 

Brent,  (John)  accompanies  Luther  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 

Breviary,  Roman,  approves  of  self-flagellation,  37. 

Britain,  continued  independent  of  papal  authority  till  the  end  of  the 
sixth  century,  180. 

Brothels,  established  in  Rome  by  Sixtus  the  Fourth,  117. 

37* 


680  INDEX, 

Brunon,  Bee  Leo.  IX. 

Bucer,  accompanies  Zuiuglius  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 

Buchanan,  Dr.  antiquity  of  Syrianism  acknowledged  by,  66. 

Bulls,  papal,  remarks  on  the  bull  "in  Ccena"  issued  in  1567  by 
Paul  the  Fifth,  234 — a  papal  bull  received  by  open  or  tacit  assent, 
and  by  a  majority  of  the  popish  clergy,  forms  a  dogma  of  faith, 
255 — observations  on  the  bull  "  Unigenitus,"  208 — bull  of  Paul 
V.  against  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  James  the  First,  234 — bull 
of  Adrian,  transferring  Ireland  to  Henry  the  Second,  222 — opin- 
ion of  M.  Caron  on  it,  223 — of  Clement  the  Fifth,  282. 

Byzantine  synod,  proceedings  of,  in  the  year  360,  307. 

C 

Cajetan,  cardinal,  see  Boniface  VIII. 

Calendion,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  banishment  of,  330. 

Calvinists,  modified  the  severity  of  predestination,  30 — unite  with 
the  Lutherans,  ib. 

Canon  law,  extends  the  spirit  of  persecution  even  to  the  dead,  266. 

Canute,  king  of  Denmark,  used  self  flagellation,  37 

Caraffa  (John  Peter)  see  Paul  IV. 

Carlcrius,  advocates  the  propriety  of  tolerating  stews  in  a  city,  199. 

Caroline  books,  a  composition  of  the  French  clergy  in  the  name  of 
Charlemagne,  481 — their  genuineness  denied  by  some,  482. 

Caron  (R.)  his  opinion  of  the  bull  of  Adrian  IV.  transferring  Ire- 
land to  Henry  the  Second,  223. 

Celestin,  a  visionary  monk,  transferred  from  a  mountain  cavern  of 
Apulia,  to  the  holy  chair  of  St.  Peter,  113 — is  induced  by  Boniface 
VIII.  tq  resign,  is  imprisoned  by  him  and  dies,  ib. 

Celestius,  a  Scotchman,  or  as  some  say,  an  Irishman,  attached  to  the 
Pelagian  school,  354 — condemned  by  the  Carthaginian  prelacy, 
356 — flies  to  Ephesus  and  Constantinople,  but  is  expelled  from 
both  these  cities,  357 — presents  himself  before  Zosimus,  and 
declares  his  innocence,  ib. — is  acquitted  by  Zosimus,  358. 

Celibacy  of  the  clergy,  526 — two  parties  on  the  subject,  ib. — a 
variation  from  the  Jewish  theocracy,  528 — a  variation  also  from 
ancient  tradition,  529 — rejected  in  the  East,  532 — progress  of,  in 
the  Romish  church,  534 — papal  policy,  a  cause  of,  541 — progress 
of,  in  the  East,  544. 

Cession  of  the  Papacy,  a  plan  suggested  by  the  Parisian  University, 
to  put  an  end  to  the  schism  between  the  reigning  Pontiffs  Benedict 
and  Gregory,  87 — this,  however,  defeated  by  the  selfish  obstinacy 
and  perjury  of  the  competitors,  ib. 

Chalcedon,  general  council  of,  convened,  321 — description  of  it, 
ib. — passes  three  distinct  creeds  on  the  subject  of  monophysitism, 
322 — conduct  of,  325. 

Charenton,  national  synod  of,  purity  of  the  Lutheran  faith  and 
worship  acknowledged  at,  by  the  French  reformed,  30. 

Charles,  king  of  Naples,  his  kingdom  bestowed  upon  him  by  Urban, 
84 — quarrel  between  them,  85 — offers  a  reward  for  the  Pontiffs 
head,  ib. — leads  an  army  against  him,  and  besieges  him  in  the 
castle  of  Nocera,  ib. — is  assassinated  in  Hungary,  ib. 


INDEX.  581 

Charles  V.  Emperor  of  Germany  and  King  of  Spain,  proscribes 
Luther,  his  followers,  and  books,  266 — begins  the  work  of  perse- 
cution in  Spain,  and  with  his  latest  breath  recommended  its 
completion  to  his  son,  Philip  the  Second,  267. 

Charles  IX.  King  of  France,  part  he  took  in  the  massacre  on  St. 
Bartholomew's  day,  270 — his  unfeeling  witticism  on  seeing  the 
body  of  Admiral  Coligny,  271. 

Childeric,  king  of  France,  deposed  in  751  for  inefficiency,  216. 

Christian  commonwealth,  original  state  of,  212. 

Ciaconia,  a  Dominican,  urges  the  extermination  of  heresy,  265. 

Cicero,  his  opinion  of  Christians,  421. 

Clara  at  Madrid,  aspires  to  the  distinction  of  a  prophetess,  35 — her 
claims  obtain  general  credit,  ib. — feigns  a  paralytic  affection,  and 
is  visited  by  the  most  distinguished  citizens  of  the  capital,  ib. — 
the  sick  implore  her  mediation  with  God  for  their  cure,  and  judges 
supplicate  light  to  direct  them  in  their  decisions,  ib. — announces 
that  by  a  special  call  of  the  Spirit  she  is  destined  to  become  a 
capuchin  nun,  but  wants  the  health  and  strength  necessary  for  this 
mode  of  life,  ib. — Pius  VII.  grants  her  a  dispensation  from  this, 
ib. — an  altar  erected  opposite  her  bed,  mass  often  said  in  her  bed- 
room, and  the  sacrament  left  there  as  in  a  sacred  repository,  ib. — 
at  length,  in  1802,  mildly  punished  by  the  inquisition,  36. 

Clemens  of  Alexandria,  testimony  of,  to  the  marriage  of  priests,  531. 

Clemens  II.  succeeds  Anacletus  or  Cletus  in  the  Roman  episcopacy, 
71. 

Clement  V.  [Bertrand  de  Got]  pope  1305,  emancipates  Edward  I. 
from  his  oath  in  confirmation  of  the  great  charter,  282. 

Clement  VII  :  [Robert  de  Geneve]  pope  1378 — 1394  Christendom 
divided  between  him  and  Urban  VI.,  81 — absolves  Francis  II.  the 
French  king,  from  a  treaty  which  he  had  formed  in  Spain,  284. 

Clement  IX.  [Jules  de  Rospigliosi,]  pope,  1667  issues  an  edict  of 
pacification  in  1668,  modifies  the  formulary  of  Alexander  VII. 
and  permits  the  dissatisfied  clergy  to  interpret  his  predecessor's 
rescript  in  their  own  sense,  and  to  subscribe  in  sincerity,  372 — 
this  modification,  called  the  peace  of  Clement,  continues  for  34 
years,  ib. 

Clement  X.  [Emilius  Altieri,]  Pope,  1670,  countenances  the  pacifi- 
cation of  his  predecessor,  372. 

Clement  XI.  John  Francis  Albani,  Pope,  1700,  overtures  the  pacifi- 
cation of  Clement  IX.  and  the  patronage  of  innocent  XI.  con- 
firms the  constitution  of  Innocent  X.  and  Alexander  VII.  against 
Jfonsenism,  and  denounces  Quesnel's  Reflections,  373. 

Cletus  and  Anacletus,  doubtful  whether  they  were  identical  or 
distinct,  73. 

Clergy,  celibacy  of,  526 — a  variation  from  the  Jewish  theocracy, 
528 — and  from  the  Christian  dispensation,  529 — also  from  ancient 
tradition,  ib. — proofs  that  the  clergy  anciently  were  married,  530 
— celibacy  of  the  clergy  rejected  in  the  East,  532 — progress  of, 
in  the  Romish  church,  533 — papal  policy  a  cause  of,  541 — progress 
of  in  the  East,  544 — domesticism  or  sunioactanism,  had  recourse 
to  by  many  of  the  clergy,  553 — concubinage  of,  555 — incest 


682  INDEX. 

committed  by,  556 — clandestine  matrimony  of,  ib. — profligacy  of, 
in  Germany,  569 — in  Switzerland,  570 — in  France,  571 — in  Italy, 
ib. — in  America,  572. 

Coleia,  St.  often  complimented  by  Satan  with  a  whipping,  40. 

Coligny,  Admiral,  massacred  on  St.  Bartholomew's  day,  271 — 
unfeeling  witticism  of  the  French  king  on  seeing  his  body,  ib. 

Cologne,  council  of,  how  it  characterized  monasteries  and  nun- 
neries, 569. 

Communion  in  one  kind,  425 — popish  arguments  for,  427 — contrary 
not  only  to  scriptural  institution,  but  also  to  the  usage  of  the  early 
and  middle  ages,  430 — not  practised  in  the  East,  433 — its  intro- 
duction, 435. 

Compulsion  on  questions  of  religion  and  conscience  unscriptural,  439. 

"  Concord  of  Grace  and  Free-will,"  by  Molina,  design  of  this  work, 
367 — by  whom  approved  and  condemned,  ib. 

Concubinage,  and  its  enormities,  555. 

Condalmerio,  assumes  the  name  of  Eugenius,  93 — his  contest  with 
Felix  respecting  the  papacy,  ib. — deposed,  and  all  his  constitu- 
tions abrogated  by  the  council  of  Basil,  94 — induces  Ladislaus, 
King  of  Hungary,  to  break  his  treaty  with  the  Sultan  Amurath,  283. 

Confessions  of  Faith,  harmony  of  those  of  the  Reformers,  25 — 
Variety  of,  307 — see  also  Augsburg  or  Augustan — Bohemian — 
Dutch — English — French — Helvetian— Palatine — Polish — Saxon 
— Scottish — Tetrapolitan  and  Wittemberg  Confessions. 

Confessor,  duty  of,  according  to  Dens,  279. 

Confirmation  not  a  sacrament,  65. 

Congregation  of  Helps,  established  by  Clement  VIII,  368. 

Constance,  general  council  of,  how  characterized  by  Baptista,  one 
of  its  own  members,  199 — conflicting  opinions  on  its  ecumenicity, 
134 — proceedings  of,  232 — profligacy  of,  573. 

Constans,  Emperor,  issues  the  Type  or  Formulary,  345 — design 
of,  ib. 

Constantino,  Emperor,  confers  the  appellation  of  God  on  the  Pope, 
158 — gives  legal  security  to  the  temporal  possessions  of  the 
Christian  republic,  212-13 — the  patron  of  iconoclasm,  147 — 
supremacy  bestowed  on  him  by  Gregory  and  others,  174. 

Constantius  adopts  Arianism,  146. 

Consubstantiality,  of  the  Son,  declared  by  the  council  of  Nice,  298 
— when  the  word  first  came  into  use,  ib. 

Consubstantiation,  absurdity  of,  deformed  for  some  time  Lutheran- 
ism,  29 — and  this  opinion  the  Saxon  Reformer  retained  with 
obstinacy  during  his  whole  life,  ib.* 

Continence,  difficulty  of,  and  instances  of  remedies  pursued  to 
preserve  it,  535. 

Convulsionarianism,  frightful  displays  of,  41,  42. 

Convulsionaries,  Popish  fanatics,  who  pretended  to  extraordinarj 
visitations  of  the  Spirit,  41. 

Corporeal  presence,  jarring  of  the  advocates  of,  416 — light  in  which 
it  has  been  viewed  by  different  denominations,  421, 

Cossa,  (Balthasar)  see  John  XXIII. 


INDEX.  583 

Councils  :  those  of  Nice,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon,  and  Constantinople, 
promulgated  the  principles  of  Protestantism,  48 — general,  in 
ecclesiastical  history  as  uncertain  as  the  Roman  pontiffs,  123 — six, 
marked  now  with  the  seal  of  approbation  and  infallibility,  were 
for  a  long  series  of  time  in  whole  or  in  part  rejected  by  a  part  or 
by  the  whole  of  Christendom,  124 — these  are,  the  second,  third, 
fourth,  fifth,  seventh,  and  twelfth,  ib. — variations  in  the  reception 
of,  123-131 — and  in  their  universality,  13-8 — sq.  difference 
respecting  their  legality,  141 — sq.  presidency  of,  142 — a  variety 
of  opinions  entertained  with  respect  to  the  persons  who  should 
form  a  general  council,  143 — also  respecting  the  manner  of  syn- 
odal decision,  144 — want  of  unanimity  in  councils,  144,  145 — and 
of  freedom  in,  145,  151 — persecuting  councils,  251 — sq.  councils 
opposed  to  councils,  363 — profligacy  of,  573 — See  also  Ariminum, 
Basil,  Cologne,  Constance,  Lateran,  Lyons,  Pisa,  Seleucia,  Trent, 
Tyrian,  Vienna. 

Creeds  :  the  Apostolic,  Nicene,  and  Athanasian,  generally  received 
in  Christendom,  47. 

Crescentius,  instigated  by  Boniface  VII.,  strangles  Benedict  VI., 
and  places  Boniface  in  the  Papal  chair,  110. 

Cross,  the,  supreme  worship  to  be  ascribed  to,  459 — observation  on, 
460 — the  agent  of  miracles,  468. 

Crucifixion:  two  instances  of,  in  order  to  exhibit  a  lively  image  of 
the  Saviour's  passion,  42. 

Crusade  against  the  Albigenses,  255. 

Cup,  sacramental,  use  of,  to  all,  enjoined  by  the  Scriptural  expres- 
sions, 427 — restricted  to  the  priesthood  by  the  Popish  interpreta- 
tion, ib. — refused  by  the  Manicheans,  430 — enjoined  by  Leo, 
Gelasius,  and  Urban,  430,  1 — and  by  Pascal,  432. 

Cursing,  specimens  of  the  Pontifical  art  of,  84. 

Cyprian,  supremacy  bestowed  on  him  by  Gregory,  and  others,  174. 

D 

Damian,  (Cardinal)  introduces  the  practice  of  self-flagellation,  37. 

Dead,  prayer  for  the,  remarks  on,  511. 

Decretals,  false,  publication  of,  about  the  year  800,  aided  the 
usurpation  of  the  papal  hierarchy,  178 — this  fabrication  displays 
in  a  strong  light  the  variations  of  Romanism,  ib. — countenanced 
by  the  sovereign  pontiffs,  ib. — its  genuineness  and  authenticity 
generally  admitted  from  the  ninth  century  till  the  Reformation, 
ib. — list  of  authors  who  have  admitted  its  forgery,  ib. 

Definitions,  pontifical  as  well  as  synodal,  have  been  misunderstood 
and  subjected  to  contradictory  interpretations,  208. 

Deivirilian  operation,  what,  339. 

Demi-Eutychians,  who  so  denominated,  62. 

Dens,  Dr.  his  system  of  theology  fraught  with  the  most  revolting 
principles  of  persecution,  274 — its  Catholicism  and  morality 
acknowledged,  in  whole,  and  in  part,  by  the  Popish  clergy  and 
people,  275 — unanimously  agreed  by  the  Popish  prelacy  to  be  the 
best  work  and  safest  guide  for  the  Irish  clergy,  ib. — remarks 
on,  541. 


584  INDEX. 

Deposition  of  Kings :  difference  of  opinion  respecting  the  Pope's 
power  of,  210 — deposition  of  continental  sovereigns,  211 — made 
an  article  of  faith,  228. 

Diamper,  synod  of:  its  statement  of  the  distinctions  which  discrimi- 
nated Syrianism  from  Popery,  64,  65 — invalidates  the  oaths  taken 
by  the  Indian  Christians,  285. 

Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,  decisive  testimony  of,  to  the  marriage 
of  the  priesthood  in  his  day,  530. 

Dioscorus,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  presides  in  the  Ephesian 
council,  316 — his  cruelty  to  Flavian,  318 — excommunicates  Leo, 
320 — is  anathematized  by  him,  ib. — a  few  of  his  practical  foibles, 
325. 

Disciplinarian  variety:  exists  among  the  Romish  as  well  as  the 
Reformed,  34 — instances  of,  ib. 

Disjunctive  in  Greek  often  equivalent  to  the  copulative,  429 — 
instances  of,  430. 

Dissensions,  ecclesiastical,  309. 

Dissimilarity  of  the  SON  maintained  by  the  Arians,  299. 

Domesticism  or  Sunisactanism,  recourse  had  to  by  many  of  the 
clergy,  553. 

Dominic  of  the  iron  cuirass,  the  great  patron  and  example  of  self- 
flagellation,  38 — makes  several  improvements  in  it,  ib. 

Dominic,  inventor  of  the  Inquisition,  258 — well  qualified  for  his 
office  of  Inquisitor-General,  ib. — proofs  of  his  inhumanity,  259. 

Dominicans,  their  dispute  with  the  Jesuits,  368. 

Drithelm,  story  of  as  related  by  Bede  and  Bellarmine,  493. 

Duelling,  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent  against,  233. 

Dulia,  or  inferior  honor  and  veneration,  to  be  paid  to  the  statues  of 
saints  and  martyrs,  459. 

Du  Pin,  Dr.,  proposes  to  Dr.  Wake  to  omit  the  word  Transubstan- 
tiation,  and  profess  a  real  change  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the 
Lord's  body  and  blood,  32. 

Dunstan,  St.  his  reported  contests  with  the  Devil,  40. 

Dutch  or  Belgic  Confession,  written  in  French  in  1561  and  in  Dutch 
and  Latin  in  1581,  confirmed  in  a  national  Synod  1579,  27. 

E 

Ecclesiastical  dissensions,  309. 

Ecthesis  or  Exposition  of  Faith,  publication  of  by  Heraclius,  343 — 
rejects  Arianism,  Nestorianism,  and  Eutychianism,  ib. — teaches 
the  unity  of  the  Mediator's  will,  ib. — and  interdicts  all  controversy 
on  the  operations,  ib. — received  by  the  oriental  patriarchs  and 
prelacy,  ib. — in  what  it  differed  from  the  Type  issued  by 
Constans,  345. 

Edgar,  king  of  England,  his  portrait  of  the  British  clergy,  567. 

Edmond,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  his  curious  treatment  of  a 
Parisian  lady,  who  solicited  him  to  unchastity,  39. 

Edward  the  Confessor,  absolved  by  a  Roman  Council  from  a 
vow  which  he  had  made  to  visit  Rome  and  the  tombs  of  the 
apostles,  284. 


INDEX.  585 

Election,  controversy  on,  little  agitated  till  the  sixteenth  century, 
3t>5 — unconditional,  advocated  by  the  Rhemists,  366. 

Electoral  Variations  as  to  the  Pontifical  succession,  74. 

Elements,  sacramental,  accounted  signs,  figures,  and  emblems,  396 
— 398 — retain  their  own  nature  and  substance,  398 — nourish  the 
human  body,  399. 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  deposed  by  Pius  the  Fourth,  225 — oath  of 
allegiance  to  her  annulled  by  Pius  the  Fourth,  284. 

English  Confession,  edited  in  the  Synod  of  London  in  1562,  and 
printed  by  the  authority  of  Queen  Elizabeth  in  1571,  27. 

Enus,  story  of,  as  told  by  Matthew  Paris,  494. 

Ephesian  council,  in  449,  reverses  the  Byzantine  decree  concerning 
Eutychianism,  316 — what  this  synod  has  been  denominated,  ib. — 
validity  of,  319. 

Epiphanius,  remarks  on  his  character  as  an  historian  and  logician, 
546 — blunder  of,  on  the  subject  of  matrimony,  547 — his  silly 
address  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  ib. 

Episcopacy :  in  its  proper  sense,  incompatible  with  the  apostleship, 
70 — a  bishop's  authority  being  limited  to  a  city  or  nation,  but  an 
apostle's  commission  extending  to  the  whole  world,  ib. 

Erasmus,  (Des.)  his  opinion  of  transubstantiation,  406 — of  half- 
communion,  432. 

Eugenius,  see  Condalmerio. 

Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  arraigns  Eutyches  for  heresy,  315 — anathe- 
matized by  the  council  of  Ephesus,  316. 

Eutyches,  superior  of  a  Byzantine  convent,  his  faith,  312 — originator 
of  Eutychianism,  ib. — how  characterized  by  Leo  and  Petavius, 
ib. — declared  guilty  of  heresy  and  blasphemy  by  a  council  at 
Constantinople,  315 — pronounced  orthodox,  and  reinstated  by  the 
Ephesian  synod,  317. 

Eutychianism,  a  verbal  heresy,  313 — its  prior  existence,  314 — 
denominated  monophysitism,  ib. — see  Monophysitism. 

Exposition  of  Faith,  see  Ecthesis. 

Extreme  unction,  not  a  sacrament,  64 — variations  on  its  effects,  441 
— a  variation  from  Scriptural  unction,  443 — and  from  tradition,  as 
well  as  from  Revelation,  451 — traditional  evidence  for,  452 — 
history  of,  455. 

F 

Faith,  confessions  of,  25,  &c. — act  of,  convicted,  sentenced  to,  by 
the  Inquisition,  261 — violation  of,  277 — taught  by  Romish 
Doctors,  278,  &c. — by  popes,  280 — by  councils,  284. 

Faithlessness,  one  of  the  filthy  elements  of  Romish  superstition,  277, 

Fanny,  Sister,  account  of  her  crucifixion,  42. 

Fathers  :  who  have  been  denominated,  46 — their  errors  and  igno- 
rance have  been  acknowledged  by  Erasmus  and  Du  Pin,  47 — 
post-Nicene  may  be  consigned  to  the  Vatican,  to  rot  with  the 
lumber  of  a  thousand  years,  ib. — ante-Nicene  exhibit  a  view  of 
Protestantism  in  all  its  prominent  traits,  ib. 

"Feed  my  sheep:"  torture  by  Bellarmine  and  others  of  the 
admonition,  169. 


586  INDEX. 

Felicite,  Sister,  suffers  crucifixion  for  the  sake  of  exhibiting  a  living 
image  of  the  Saviour's  passion,  42. 

Felix,  Pope,  elected  by  the  Arian  faction  in  the  room  of  Liberius, 
74 — at  length  overthrown,  retires  to  his  estate  at  Ponto  and  dies, 
75 — canonized  and  worshipped,  ib. 

Flagellation,  called  by  Baronius  "  a  laudable  usage,"  36 — recom- 
mended also  by  the  Roman  Breviary  and  various  Pontiffs,  37 — 
adopted  by  the  monks  in  the  time  of  the  crusades,  ib. — not 
peculiar  to  men  and  women,  but,  it  seems,  Satan  himself  enjoyed 
his  share  of  the  amusement,  40 — names  of  those  who  have  used 
it,  37,  sq. 

Flavian,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  condemned  and  assassinated 
fo,  nis  monophysitism,  318. 

Florence,  council  of,  rejected  by  the  French,  130. 

Formosus,  in  893  gains  the  Pontifical  throne  by  bribery,  78 — guilty 
of  perjury,  ib. 

Formulary,  see  Type. 

Fornication,  clerical  fornication  preferred  to  matrimony,  559 — 
practised  by  pontiffs,  councils,  and  clergy,  569-574. 

Fortunatian  constrains  Liberius  to  the  subscription  of  heresy,  303. 

Frances,  Sister,  curious  comedy  enacted  by  her  of  burning  the 
gown  off  her  back,  42. 

Francis,  St.  plan  adopted  by,  to  preserve  continence,  535. 

Francis  I.  King  of  France,  enacts  laws  against  the  French  Protest- 
ants, and  causes  many  Lutherans  to  suffer  martyrdom,  he  himself 
being  present  at  the  execution,  267. 

Francis  II.  King  of  France,  absolved  by  Clement  VII.  from  a  treaty 
which  he  had  formed  in  Spain,  286. 

Francisca,  St.  uses  frequent  self-flagellation,  37. 

Francon,  see  Boniface  VII. 

Frankfort,  council  of,  exhibited  a  representation  of  the  western 
clergy  from  England,  Italy,  France,  and  Germany,  128. 

Frederic  III.,  Elector  Palatine,  issues  a  formulary  in  1576,  26. 

Free-will,  controversy  on,  little  agitated  from  the  ninth  till  the  six- 
teenth century,  365. 

French  clergy,  profligacy  of,  571. 

French  confession  of  faith,  drawn  up  at  Paris  in  1559,  27 — per 
sented  jy  Beza  to  Charles  IX.  ib. 

Friar  Matthew,  his  adventure,  39. 

Fullo,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  impiety  of,  329 — maintains  the  Euty- 
chian  theory,  ib, — adds  a  supplement  to  the  Trisagion,  or  sacred 
hymn,  ib. — banished  by  Zeno,  but  again  restored  to  his  patriarch 
ate,  330 — how  denominated  by  Felix,  331. 

G 

Gage   (Thos.)    author  of  the  Survey,  what  proselyted   him   from 

Romanism,  424. 
Gelasius,  Pope,  enacts  that  the  sacrament  should  be  celebrated  in 

both  kinds,  431 — observation  of,  on  the  Manicheans,  430. 
Geneve  (Robt.  de)  see  Clement  XI. 
Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  allusion  to  his  story  of  the  Trojan  Brutus,  72 


INDEX.  587 

German  clergy,  profligacy  of,  569. 

God  :  supposed  equality  of  the  Pope  with,  157 — his  works  as  well  as 
name  ascribed  to  the  pope,  159 — alleged  superiority  of  the  pope 
to,  159-169 — his  omnipotence  had  recourse  to  by  the  patrons  of 
transubstantiation,  419. 

Godric,  an  English  hermit,  remedy  of,  to  preserve  continence,  53>5. 

Gottescalcus,  a  monk  distinguished  for  his  learning,  maintains  the 
system  of  predestination,  and  particular  redemption,  and  of 
election  and  reprobation,  362 — is  opposed  by  Raban  (which  see) 
^03 — is  tried  in  the  council  of  Mentz,  and  condemned  for  heresy, 
ib. — is  next  tried  in  the  council  of  Quiercy  and  convicted  of  con- 
tumacy and  heresy,  ib. — is  deposed,  scourged  and  thrown  into 
prison,  364. 

Grace,  controversy  on,  little  agitated  from  the  ninth  to  the  sixteenth 
century,  365. 

Gratian  (John)  see  Gregory  VI. 

Great  Western  Schism,  began  in  1378,  and  continued  for  half  a 
century,  81-93.  t 

Greek  Church :  its  religion  that  of  European  and  Asiatic  Russia, 
58 — does  not  agree  in  all  things  with  modern  Protestants,  ib. — 
as  it  continued  longest  in  conjunction  with  the  Latin,  so  it  has 
imbibed  most  corruption,  ib. — opposes,  however,  Papal  usurpa- 
tion, denies  the  Romish  to  be  the  true  church,  and  condemns  the 
dogmas  of  purgatory,  supererogation,  half-communion,  human 
merit,  clerical  celibacy,  prayers  for  the  dead,  and  restricting  the 
circulation  of  the  Bible,  58-59. 

Greeks,  their  dispute  with  the  Latins  on  monothelitism,  343,  sqq. 

Gregory  II.  [Marcel]  pope,  715,  introduces  dissension  between 
Roman  emperors  and  Roman  pontiffs,  186 — authorizes  bigamy, 
521 — errors  of,  in  making  David  bring  the  brazen  serpent  and 
the  holy  ark  into  the  Jewish  temple,  425 — and  representing  Ozias 
as  the  breaker  of  the  brazen  serpent,  $). 

Gregory,  VI.  (John  Gratian)  (1045)  purchases  the  papacy  from 
Benedict,  Silvester  and  John,  80. 

Gregory  VII.  [HildebranH]  1073,  obtains  the  papacy  by  force  and 
bribery,  111 — his  character,  ib. — prescribes  a  form  of  belief  on 
the  subject  of  transubstantiation,  31 — subjected  not  only  the 
church,  but  the  state,  and  monopolized  both  civil  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal power,  155 — the  first  who  attempted  the  degradation  of  civil 
potentates,  217 — his  description  of  monarchy,  ib. — asserts  his 
authority  to  dissolve  the  oath  of  fealty,  280 — absolves  all  Chris- 
tians from  their  oath  to  the  Emperor  Henry,  284 — succeeds  to  a 
great  extent  in  the  suppression  of  priestly  marriage,  557 — openly 
accused  of  fornication,  adultery  and  incest,  532 — his  opinion  on 
the  site  of  purgatory,  492. 

Gregory  IX.  [Hugolin]  pope,  1227,  declares  that  none  should  keep 
faith  with  the  person  who  opposed  God  and  the  saints,  281 — 
absolves  from  their  oath  all  who  had  sworn  fealty  to  Frederic,  the 
Roman  emperor,  285. 

Gregory  XI.  [Peter  Roger]  pope,  1370,  restores  the  papal  court  tu 
Rome,  after  its  having  been  continued  at  Avignon  for  seventy 
years,  81. 


588  INDEX. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  remark  of,  on  the  contentions  of  the  clergy  iu 
synods,  310 — resigns  and  retires  through  an  aversion  to  the  alter- 
cations  of  the  ecclesiastics,  ib. 

Guido,  a  Dominican  persecutor,  wrote  in  the  Tolosan  Chronicle,  51 

Guise,  Duke  of,  massacre  on  St.  Bartholomew's  day  entrusted  to 
him,  270. 

H 

Haedio,  accompanies  Zuinglius  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 

Half-Communion,  see  Communion  in  one  kind. 

Hedwig,  Duchess  of  Silesia  and  Great  Poland,  uses  self-flagellation 
to  an  unusual  degree,  38. 

Helvetian  Confession,  issu-ed  in  1536  at  Basil,  26 — this  enlarged  and 
improved  again  published  in  1566,  27. 

Henoticon,  or  edict  of  union,  published  by  Zeno,  334 — its  design  to 
conciliate  the  partisans  of  Monophysitism  and  Catholicism,  ib. — 
subject  of  it,  ib. — augments  the  evil  it  was  designed  to  remedy, 
335 — treatment  it  met  with,  ib. — differences  of  opinion  as  to  its 
orthodoxy,  ib. 

Henricians,  held  nearly  the  same  dogmas  as  the  Calvinists,  55. 

Henry  II.  King  of  England,  despatches  messengers  to  Adrian  IV, 
requesting  his  permission  to  invade  Ireland,  which  is  transferred 
to  him,  222 — his  persecution  of  the  Waldenses,  249. 

Henry  II.  King  of  France,  indulges  his  taste  in  viewing  the  expiring 
struggles  of  his  heretical  subjects  in  the  pangs  of  dissolution,  268. 

Henry  VIII.  King  of  England,  withdraws  from  the  papal  jurisdic- 
tion, 224 — is  excommunicated  and  deposed,  &c.  by  Paul  the 
Third,  ib. 

Heraclius,  publishes  the  Ecthesis  or  Exposition  of  Faith,  343* 

Heresy,  persecution  of,  245. 

Higgins,  Dr.  his  assertion  in  the  Maynooth  examination,  that  no 
pontiff  denned  for  the  belief  of  the  faithful,  that  the  pontifical 
power  of  dethroning  kings  was  founded  on  divine  light,  227. 

Hilary,  remark  of,  on  the  variety  of  confessions  among  the  Roman- 
ists, 310 — the  severest  satirist  in  this  age  on  the  variations  of 
popery,  ib. 

Hildebrand,  see  Gregory  VII. 

Hincmar,  a  French  bishop,  advocates  in  865  the  canons  of  Nicea 
and  Sardica,  and  explodes  the  novelty  of  the  decretals,  180. 

Hugolin,  see  Gregory  IX. 

Holy  Ghost,  sin  against,  observations  on,  500. 

Honorius  patronized  Arianism,  Pelagianism,  andMonothelitism,  102. 

Host,  the,  pretended  miracles  respecting,  417. 

Huss,  John,  summoned  to  the  city  of  Constance  on  a  charge  of 
heresy,  288 — his  safety  and  return  guaranteed  by  the  Empero/ 
Sigismund,  ib. — was  tried,  however,  condemned  and  burnt,  ib. — 
his  magnanimity,  ib. 

Hyperdulia,  or  intermediate  worship,  459. 

I 

Icoiiolatrians,  a  faction  of  the  Greeks,  devoted  to  the  use  of  images, 


INDEX.  589 

tconoclasm,  ediit  in  favour  of,  issued  in  726,  216. 

Iconoclasts,  a  faction  of  the  Greeks,  481. 

Images,  not  to  be  venerated,  65 — introduction  of,  into  the  church, 
470. 

Image-worship,  three  systems,  457 — one  allows  the  use  of  images, 
but  rejects  their  worship,  ib. — the  second  honour  images  witnh 
inferior  worship,  458 — the  third  prefer  the  same  adoration  to  the 
representation  as  to  the  represented,  459 — different  systems  of 
image-worship,  460 — image-worship  a  variation  from  scriptural 
authority,  and  from  Jewish  and  Christian  antiquity,  461 — also 
from  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  466 — pretended  miraculous  proofs 
of,  ib. — progress  of,  471-2 — opposed  by  the  Emperor  Leo,  474 — 
condemned  by  the  Byzantine  council,  476 — patronized  by  Irene, 
478 — variations  in  the  East  on,  486. 

Incest,  committal  of,  by  the  Romish  priests,  556. 

In  Ccena,  bull  of,  issued  by  Paul  V.  in  1567,  subject  of,  234. 

Incomprehensibility  to  be  distinguished  from  impossibility,  419. 

India,  from  time  immemorial  contained  a  church  which  was  un- 
known to  the  rest  of  Christendom,  66 — and  which  held  the  same 
theology  that  was  promulgated  by  Luther  and  Calvin,  ib. 

Indian,  parallel  between  and  Christian,  421. 

Infallibility  :  impossibility  of,  197 — moral  impossibility  of,  207 — 
ecclesiastical,  absurdity  of,  195 — pontifical,  its  object,  189 — its 
form,  190 — its  uncertainty,  191 — pontifical  and  synodal,  193 — 
absurdity  of,  195 — infallibility  would  require  a  continued  miracle 
and  personal  inspiration,  209. 

Innocent  I.  pope,  (402)  first  sent  a  missionary  expedition  against  the 
Albigenses,  255. 

Innocent  III.  [Card.  Lothaire]  pope,  1198,  discovered  the  popedom 
in  the  book  of  Genesis,  171 — according  to  him,  the  firmament 
mentioned  by  the  Jewish  legislator  signifies  the  church,  ib. — and 
the  greater  light  denotes  the  pontifical  authority,  the  less,  repre- 
sents the  royal  power,  ib. — seems  to  outrival  Gregory  in  usurpa- 
tion and  tyranny,  186 — obtains  the  three  great  objects  of  his 
pursuit,  sacerdotal  sovereignty,  regal  monarchy,  and  dominion 
over  kings,  ib. — divests  King  John  of  England,  223 — proclaims  a 
crusade  against  the  Albigenses,  256. 

Innocent  IV.  pope,  1243,  his  treatment  of  the  Albigenses,  248. 

Innocent  X.,  [Card.  Panfili]  pope,  1644,  declares  that  the  Roman 
pontiff  could  invalidate  civil  contracts  or  oaths  made  by  the 
friends  of  Catholicism  with  the  patrons  of  heresy,  281. 

Innocent  XL  [Bened.  Odescalchi]  pope,  1676,  patronizes  the  parti- 
zans  of  Jansenism,  373 — retracts  the  decisions  of  former  pontiffs 
and  displays  the  variations  of  Romanism,  ib. 

Inquisition,  who  the  inventor  of,  258 — where  first  established,  260 
— admitted  all  kinds  of  evidence,  ib. — cruelties  of,  261 — driven 
out  of  many  kingdoms,  262 — encouraged  by  the  Romish  clergy, 
ib. — evidences  the  deepest  malignity  of  human  nature,  ib. — • 
accounted  by  Paul  IV.  the- sheet-anchor  of  the  papacy,  265. 

Inquisitor,  contrast  between,  and  the  Messiah,  240. 

Intinction,  a  mutilation  of  the  sacrament,  of  what  it  consisted,  434 


INDEX. 

Intolerance,  a  manifest  innovation  on  the  usage  of  antiquity,  and 
one  of  the  variations  of  Romanism,  240. 

Irenaeus,  attacks  the  errors  of  his  day,  33. 

Irene,  Empress,  jurisdiction  of  the  whole  ecclesiastical  community 
ascribed  to  her  by  Paulus,  the  Byzantine  patriarch,  175 — her 
cruelty  and  character,  478. 

Ireland :  maintains  its  independency  on  the  Pope  still  longer  than 
England,  182 — rejects  the  papal  supremacy,  and  indeed  all 
foreign  domination,  till  the  end  of  the  twelfth  century,  ib. — was 
for  many  ages  a  school  of  learning  for  the  European  nations,  ib. 
— but  the  Danish  army  invading  her,  darkness  literary  and  moral 
succeeded  and  prepared  the  way  for  Romanism,  ib. — transferred 
by  Adrian  IV.  to  Henry  II.,  221. 

Italian  Clergy,  profligacy  of,  571. 


J 

Jacob,  different  interpretations  of  his  worshipping  God,  as  men- 
tioned in  Heb.  xi.  26,  463,  &c. 

Jacob  or  Zanzal,  the  restorer  of  the  denomination  called  Jacobites, 
313. 

Jacobites  or  Monophysites,  diffused  through  Syria,  Mesopotamia, 
Armenia,  Egypt,  Nubia,  and  Abyssinia,  60 — reject  supremacy, 
purgatory,  transubstantiation,  half-communion,  auricular  confes- 
sion, extreme  unction,  the  Latin  Liturgy,  and  the  seven  sacraments, 
61 — do  not  confound  the  godhead  and  manhood  of  the  Son,  ib., 
313 — whence  denominated,  312. 

James  I.  oath  of  allegiance  to,  papal  bull  against,  235. 

Jansenists,  their  dispute  with  the  Jesuits,  369 — effects  of  their 
controversy,  379. 

Jansenius,  publishes  his  work,  styled  "  Augustine,"  369. 

Jerome,  trepanned  by  the  mockery  of  a  safe  conduct,  goes  to  Con- 
stance for  the  purpose  of  supporting  John  Huss,  and  is,  like  him, 
burnt,  288 — his  heroism,  289. 

Jesuits,  in  general  would  extend  infallibility  both  to  questions  of 
right  and  of  fact,  189 — defend  Molina's  '  Middle  Science,'  367 — 
their  controversy  with  the  Dominicans,  368 — and  with  the  Jan- 
senists, 369-37 1 — sink  into  disrepute  and  are  expelled  from  the 
French  kingdom  for  dishonesty  in  trade  and  immorality,  379. 

Jesus  Christ,  in  the  theology  of  Christian  antiquity  united  in  one 
person,  both  deity  and  humanity,  311 — difference  of  opinion 
respecting  his  natures,  312 — see  also,  Son  of  God. 

Joan,  Pope,  her  reign  circulated  without  contradiction  till  the  era 
of  the  Reformation,  73. 

Joanna,  Queen  of  Naples :  deposed  by  Urban,  82 — betrayed  and 
murdered  by  Charles,  King  of  Naples,  and  Urban,  85. 

John  XII.  (Octavian)  pope,  955 — surpasses  all  his  predecessors  in 
crime,  109 — is  deposed  by  the  Roman  council,  but  afterwards 
regains  the  Holy  See,  ib. — being  caught  in  adultery,  is  killed,  ib. 

John  XIV.,  Pope,  (984)  succeeds  Boniface  VII.  on  the  expulsion 
of  the  latter,  111 — is,  however,  imprisoned  by  Boniface,  who  had 


TODEX.  591 

regained  the  papal  chair,  and  dies  of  starvation  in  the  castle  of 
Angelo,  ib. — his  body  exposed  at  the  castle  gate,  ib. 

John  XXII.  Pope,  (1316)  distinguished  for  patronising  heresy,  105 
— denied  the  admission  of  disembodied  souls  into  the  beatific 
vision  of  God  during  their  intermediate  state  between  death  and 
the  resurrection,  ib. — his  belief  concerning  the  spirits  of  the  just, 
ib. — sends  a  mission  to  the  Parisian  faculty  to  effect  their  prose- 
lytism  to  his  system,  106. 

John  XXIII.  Balthasar  Cossa,  Pope,  1410,  exceeds  all  his  prede- 
cessors in  enormity,  114 — atrocity  of  his  life  ascertained  and 
published  by  the  general  Council  of  Constance  after  a  tedious 
trial,  ib. — his  character,  114,  115. 

John,  king  of  England,  divested  of  his  kingdom  by  Innocent  the 

Third,  223 — excommunicated,  ib. — submits  to  the  pontiff,  and 
delivers  up  his  crown  to  Pandolph,  the  Pope's  nuncio,  224. 

Jonas,  Justus,  accompanies  Luther  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 

Juliana,  St.  her  contest  with  Satan,  40. 

Julius  II.  (1503)  succeeds  Alexander  VI.  in  the  papacy  and  in 
iniquity,  119 — his  character,  ib. — grants  a  pardon  of  all  sins  to 
any  person,  who  would  murder  an  individual  of  the  French 
nation,  ib. 

K 

Keys :  donation  of  the,  mentioned  by  St.  Matthew,  adduced  by 
some  writers  in  proof  of  the  supremacy,  a  topic  of  diversified 
opinion  among  the  friends  of  Romanism,  168 — the  ancients 
however,  and  many  learned  moderns  in  the  Romish  communion, 
ascribe  the  reception  of  the  keys  to  the  universal  church,  ib. 

Kings,  deposition  of  by  popes,  210 — sanctioned  by  eight  Roman 
Councils,  229 — dethronement  of  taught  by  the  popes,  227 — made 
an  article  of  faith,  229. 

Koran,  the,  Mohammed  assisted  in  the  composition  of,  by  an  apos- 
tatized Christian  and  a  temporizing  Jew,  516. 

L 

Languedoc,  devastation  of,  by  the  holy  warriors,  257. 

Lateran,  fourth  council  of,  enacted  formal  regulations  for  the 
dethronement  of  refractory  kings,  229 — surpassed  all  its  prede- 
cessors in  severity,  251 — freed  the  subjects  of  such  sovereigns  as 
embraced  heresy  from  their  fealty,  286 — twelfth  general  council 
bas,  in  latter  days,  occasioned  a  wonderful  diversity  of  opinion, 
128 — its  canons  whence  extracted,  129 — fifth  council  of,  dis- 
claimed by  the  French,  130. 

Latins,  their  dispute  with  the  Greeks  on  Monothelitism  and  the 
Exposition  of  Heraclius,  343. 

Latria,  or  supreme  adoration,  458 — to  whom  due,  according  to  the 
schoolmen,  459. 

Lavaur,  storming  and  taking  of,  in  1211,  horrors  attending,  257. 

Lenzuoli,  see  Alexander  VI. 

Leo  IX.  (Brunon)  pcpe,  1049,  represents  the  church  as  built  on  the 
rock,  which  is  Emmanuel,  as  well  as  on  Peter  or  Cephas,  168. 


592  INDEX. 

Leo  X.  (John  de  Medici)    1513,  pope,  succeeds  Julius  II.  in   the 

papacy,  and  in  enormity,  119 — orders  all  to  shun  Luther  and  his 

adherents,  265. 
Liberius,  pope,  352 — opposes  Arianism  for  a  time,  74 — banished  by 

the    Emperor  Constantius,    ib. — signs   the   Arian    creed,  and    is 

recalled  from  banishment,  ib. — proofs  of  his  Arianism,  302. 
Linus  :  represented  by  Eusebius,  Irenseus,  Ruffirius,  &c.  as  the  first 

Roman  bishop,  who   exercised  the   Roman  prelacy,  70 — at  the 

present  day,  however,  accounted  by  Greeks  and  Latins  the  second 

pontiff,  73. 

Literature,  diffusion  of,  change  effected  by,  273. 

Liturgies,  ancient,  different  forms  of  prayers  contained  in  them,  513. 
Lord's  Supper,  elements  accounted  signs,  figures,   and   emblems. 

396-7 — retain  their  own  nature  and  substance,  398 — nourish  the 

human  body,  399. 

Lothaire,  Cardinal,  see  Innocent  III. 

Louvain,  university  of,  a  beautiful  specimen  of  its  Jesuitism,  274. 
Lucius  III.  fulminates  anathemas  against  the  Walden&es,  248. 
Luther,  Martin,  his  pertinacity  on  the  subject  of  consubstantiation 

awakened  a  series  of  noisy,  useless  disputation,  29 — his  hostility 

to  Zuinglianism  often  overrated,  ib. — his  answer  to   Henry  the 

Eighth,  475. 
Lutherans  :  renounce  the  absurdity  of  consubstantiation,  30 — and 

unite  with  the  Calvinists,  ib. — conference  between  them  and  the 

Zuinglians  in  1559,  at  Marpurg,  29. 
Lyons,   general    council   of,    pronounced   sentence    of    deposition 

against  Frederic  the  Second,  229 — absolves  his  vassals  from  their 

oath  of  fealty,  286 — this  council  rejected  by  the  French,  129 — 

profligacy  of,  571. 

M 
Macarius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  expelled    from  the  sixth  general 

council  of  Constantinople,  as  a  monothelite,  348. 
Maccabees,  book  of,  uncanonical,  and  deficient  in  morality,  511 — 

observations  on,  512. 
Macgeoghegan  (Mr.)  his  opinion  of  the  Bull  of  Adrian  the  Fourth, 

transferring  Ireland  to  Henry  the  Second,  222. 
Mahomet,  see  Mohammed. 
Manducation  of  the  sacramental  elements,  421. 
Manicheans,  the  first  who  practised  half-communion,  430 — expelled 

by  Leo  the  First,  431 — observation  of  Pope  Gelasius  on  them,  ib. 
Manna,  in  the  wilderness,  said  by  the  Romanist  divines,  in  a  general 

congregation  at  Trent,  to  prefigure  the  sacramental  bread,  426. 
Marcel,  see  Gregory  II. 

Margaret,  daughter  to  the  king  of  Hungary,  uses  self-flagellation,  39. 
Mariana,  John,  eulogizes  persecutions  and  the  inquisition,  263 — his 

delineation  of  the  moral  traits  of  the  14th  and  15th  centuries,  203. 
Marozia,   mistress    to    Sergius    III.    with   her  mother    Theodora, 

assumes  in   a  great   measure    the   whole    administration   of  the 

church,  109. 

Marpurg :  conference  in  1529,  between  the  Lutherans  and  Zuing- 
lians at,  29. 


INDEX.  593 

Marriage,  its  influence  on  mankind,  542. — See  also  Matrimony. 

Mary,  Sister,  suffers  crucifixion,  but  wanting  faith  or  fortitude,  is 
taken  down  in  less  than  an  hour,  42. 

Mary,  Queen  of  England,  professes  her  resolution  to  support 
Catholicism,  and  to  eradicate  error  and  heresy,  272 — her  death 
the  only  favor  she  ever  conferred  on  her  unfortunate  and  perse- 
cuted subjects,  273. 

Mary,  Virgin,  absurd  eulogies  of,  547 — invocation,  intercession,  and 
holy-days  of,  proscribed  by  Constantine,  478 — images  of,  adorned 
the  altar,  and  edified  the  faithful,  467. 

Mass,  mummery  of  the,  a  ludicrous  spectacle,  434. 

Materialism,  hateful  and  degrading  doctrine  of,  patronized  by  the 
councils  of  Nice,  Vienna,  and  the  Lateran,  200. 

Matrimony,  no  sacrament,  65 — among  the  Israeiitish  clergy 
amounted  in  one  sense,  to  a  command,  528 — examples  and  pre- 
cepts in  favor  of,  left  by  the  apostles,  529 — vituperation  of,  by 
popish  doctors,  539. 

Matthew,  Friar,  his  adventure  with  a  young  nymph,  39. 

Meaux,  bishop  of,  see  Bossuet,  (J.  B.) 

Medici,  (Catharine  de)  plans  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew's 
day,  270. 

Medici,  (John  de)  see  Leo  X. 

Medici,  (J.  A.  de)  see  Pius  IV. 

Melancthon  accompanies  Luther  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 

Melun,  synod  of,  for  what  purpose  convened,  145. 

Merindol,  massacre  of,  executed  by  the  president  Oppeda,  268. 

"  Middle  Science,"  a  theory  by  which  Molina  attempted  to  reconcile 
divine  grace  and  free-will,  367. 

Miletius,  supremacy  bestowed  on  him  by  Gregory  and  others,  174. 

Militia  of  Jesus,  who  so  called,  258 — called  also  the  militia  of 
Dominic,  the  warriors  of  the  captain  of  salvation,  in  Italy  the 
knights  of  the  inquisition,  and  in  Spain  the  familiars  of  the  holy 
office,  ib. 

Milennium,  exploded  both  by  the  Romish  and  reformed,  47. 

Mind,  actions  of  the,  signified  by  those  of  the  body,  in  scripture,  387. 

Mingrelians,  belong  to  the  Greek  church,  and  appear  to  disbelieve 
transubstantiation,  59. 

Miracles,  pretended,  to  support  transubstantiation,  416. 

Mirandula,  his  picture  of  the  immorality  of  the  Romish  church,  204. 

Missions  for  the  purpose  of  proselytism,  supported  on  an  extensive 
scale  by  the  Roman  pontiff,  179. 

Mohammed,  assisted  in  the  composition  of  the  Koran,  it  is  believed, 
by  an  apostatized  Christian  and  a  temporizing  Jew,  516. 

Molina,  (John)  publishes  his  '  Concord  of  Grace  and  Free-Will,' 
367 — attempts  to  reconcile  divine  grace  and  free-will  by  *  the 
Middle  Science,'  ib. 

Molinism,  its  Catholicism,  &c.  vouched  for  by  the  university  of 
Alcala,  367 — proscribed  by  the  university  of  Salamanca,  ib. 

Molinos,  (John)  see  Molina. 

Monasteries,  how  characterized  by  the  council  of  Cologne,  .569. 
38 


594  INDEX. 

Monks,  absurd  demonstration  that  they  are  angels,  and  therefore 
proper  ministers  of  the  gospel,  44 — suppression,  of  477. 

Monophysites,  or  Jacobites,  divided  into  Asiatics  and  Africans,  and 
diffused  through  Syria,  Mesopotamia,  Armenia,  Egypt,  Nubia, 
and  Abyssinia,  60 — their  doctrines,  61. 

Monophysitism,  no  novelty,  314 — only  a  nominal  or  verbal  heresy, 
ib. — its  prior  existence,  ib. — condemned  by  the  Byzantine  council, 
315 — approved  by  the  Ephesian  council,  316 — three  creeds  on 
the  subject  of,  passed  by  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  322 — state  of, 
after  the  council  of  Chalcedon,  327. 

Monothelitism,  ascribed  only  one  will  and  one  operation  to  the  Son 
of  God,  339 — its  author,  ib. — its  general  reception,  340 — sup- 

Sorted  by  the  Roman  emperor,  and  by  the  Antiochian,  Alexan- 
rian,  Byzantine,  and  Roman  patriarchs,  ib.  et  sq. — its  degradation 
from  Catholicism  to  heresy,  343 — its  second  triumph,  347 — synodal 
decision  against  it  by  the  sixth  general  council  of  Constantinople, 
ib. — its  total  overthrow,  351 — its  temporary  revival,  ib. — its 
universal  extinction,  353. 

Montanism,  rivals  the  fanaticism  of  Swedenborgianism,  34. 

Montfort,  Earl  of,  army  against  the  Albigenses  led  by,  256 — his 
character,  ib. 

Moral  variations  of  the  popedom,  107. 

Mussulmen  adopted  the  idea  of  purgatorian  punishment,  in  all  pro- 
bability, from  the  popish  and  Jewish  systems,  516. 

Mythology,  Egyptian,  Grecian,  Roman,  and  Scandinavian  exhibit 
some  faint  traces  of  the  Trinity,  296. 

N 
Nativity,  Sister,  Revelations  of,  recommended  by  Rayment,  Hodson, 

Bruning,  and  Milner,  36 — her  visions,  ib — self-flagellation  the 
amusement  of  her  leisure  hours,  ib. 

Nestorians  :  overspread  Asiatic  Turkey,  Arabia,  Persia,  Tartary, 
India,  and  China,  60 — their  churches  represented  by  Cosmas  as 
infinite  or  unnumbered,  ib. — said  to  divide  the  person  of  the  Son, 
but  this  controversy  a  mere  dispute  about  words,  62. 

Nestorius,  accused  of  denying  our  Lord's  humanity,  and  of  renew- 
ing the  errors  of  Gnosticism  and  Apollinarianism,  312. 

New  Jerusalem,  its  foundations,  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles, 
167. 

Nicaea,  council  of,  the  first  general  council,  the  most  celebrated 
congress  of  antiquity,  298 — assembled  to  settle  the  Trinitarian 
controversy,  ib. — proceedings  of  the  second,  479-80 — condemned 
at  Frankfort,  483 — decree  of  the  Parisian  council  respecting, 
484-5. 

Nicea,  canons  of,  advocated  by  Hincmar,  the  celebrated  French 
bishop,  180. 

Nicene  Creed  :  its  general  reception  in  Christendom,  47. 

Nicholas  I.  pope,  858,  his  annoyance  respecting  the  Chalcedonian 
canon  relative  to  appeal,  176 — his  curious  explanation  of  it,  ib. 

Nicholas  V.  [Thomas  Parentucelli  orde  Sarzana,]  pope,  1447,  suc- 
ceeds Eugenius  in  the  Papacy,  97 — denominates  him  the  supreme 


INDEX.  595 

head    of   the    church,    but    excommunicates    Felix   and   all   hi« 

adherents,  ib. 

Nunneries,  how  characterized  by  the  council  of  Cologne,  569. 
Nuns  of  Port  Royal  refused  to  sign  the  formulary  of  Alexander  the 

Seventh,  372 — treatment  they  received  in  consequence,  ib. 

O 

Oaths,  invalidation  of,  277— -taught  and  practised  by  popes,  280,  sqq. 

— and  by  popish  Councils,  284,  285,  289 — pontiffs  by  whom  the 

practice  of  annulling  oath  was  exemplified,  281. 
Octavian,  see  John  XII. 
Odecsalchi,  Benedict,  see  Innocent  XI. 
Odo,  undeceives  several  unbelieving  clergymen  on  the  subject  of 

the  host,  416. 
GEcolampadius,  accompanies  Zuinglius  to  the  conference  at  Mar- 

purg,  29. 

Omnipotence  of  God,  recourse  had  to,  by  the  patrons  of  the  absur- 
dity of  transubstantiation,  419 — omnipotence  extends  only  to 

possibility,  and  not  to  inconsistency,  to  things   above,  but   not 

contrary  to  sense,  ib. 
Oppeda  massacres  the  Waldenses,  268. 
Orange,  massacre  of,  horrors  attending  it,  269. 
Origen,  remarks   on  the  ordeal  of,   509 — testimony  of  in  favor  of 

sacerdotal  celibacy,  531. 
Orobio,  endured  the  rack  for  Judaism,  261. 

Orphic  theology,  Trinitarianism  appears  in  a  misshapen  form  in,  296. 
Osca  :  his  confession,  which  contains  an  outline   of  Protestantism, 

still  extant,  50. 

Osiander,  accompanies  Luther  to  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  29. 
Oxford,  council  of,  condemns  the  Waldenses,  and  consigns  them  to 

the  secular  arm,  249. 

P 

Paganism,  persecution  of,  243. 

Palatine  Confession  :  Frederic  III.,  Elector  Palatine,  issued  in  1576, 
a  Formulary  of  Faith,  26. 

Pandolphus,  nuncio  to  Adrian  IV.,  receives  the  crown  from  King 
John  as  a  token  of  subjection,  224. 

Panfili,  Cardinal,  see  Innocent  X. 

Papacy :  schisms  in  the  74,  sqq. 

Papal  church  guilty  of  general  apostacy,  305 — sanctions  Arianism, 
308. 

Papal  court,  removal  of  from  Avignon  to  Rome,  81. 

Papal  supremacy,  four  variations  of,  152-3 — silence  of  tradition 
concerning,  172 — unknown  to  antiquity,  174 — ascribed  to  other 
Sees  besides  Rome,  175 — asserted  by  false  decretals,  178 — rejec- 
tion of  in  various  countries,  179. 

Papias,  seems  to  have  originated  the  whole  story  of  Peter's  Roman 
episcopacy,  73. 

Paphnutius,  of  Thebais,  character  of,  and  his  observation  on  mar- 
riage, 544. 


596  INDEX. 

Parisian  council,  decree  of,  485. 

Pascal,  (Blaise)  opinion  of  Voltaire  on  his  "  Pr  >vincial  Letters,"  370 

Pascal,  the  Second,  perjury  of,  120 — freed  from  an  oath  by  a  council 
of  the  Late  ran,  285 — enactments  of  on  the  administration  of  the 
sacrament,  432. 

Pascasius,  the  father  of  the  deformity  of  transubstantiation,  405 — 
Pascasian  controversy,  406 — opposed  by  Scotus  and  Bertramn, 
407. 

Paschal  festival,  controversy  respecting  the  observing  of,  180. 

Paul,  St.  in  his  epistles  supplies  no  proof  of  the  supremacy,  but  on 
the  contrary,  170. 

Paul  III.  issues  a  sentence  of  deposition  against  Henry  Vlli,  224 — 
forbids  all  sovereigns  to  lend  any  aid  to  him,  284. 

Paul  IV.  [John  Peter  CaraflTa.j  pope  1555,  a  model  of  pontifical 
ambition,  arrogance,  haughtiness,  and  tyranny,  155 — contemned 
the  authority  of  councils  and  kings,  ib. — his  power  unbounded 
and  above  all  synods,  and  this  he  called  an  article  of  faith,  and  the 
contrary  he  denominated  a  heresy,  156 — accounted  the  inquisition 
the  sheet-anchor  of  the  papacy,  and  recommends  it  for  the  exter- 
mination of  heresy,  265 — absolves  himself  from  an  oath,  declaring 
that  the  pontiff  could  not  be  bound  by  an  oath,  281. 

Paul  V.  pope,  in  1567,  issued  the  bull  "in  Ccena,"  234 — in  1609 
issued  a  Bull  forbidding  the  English  attached  to  Romanism,  to 
take  the  oath  of  allegiance,  234 — canonized  Gregory  the  Sev- 
enth, 235. 

Pelagia,  of  Antioch,  escapes  persecution  by  a  voluntary  death,  550 
— is  eulogized  by  Ambrosius,  ib. 

Pelagianism  patronized  by  Liberius,  Honorius,  and  Zozimus,  102 — 
design  of,  354 — its  author  and  dissemination,  354,355 — patronized 
by  the  Asians,  356 — opposed  by  the  Africans,  ib.  359 — condemned 
by  Innocent,  356 — approved  by  Zozimus,  357 — anathematized  by 
him,  360 — approved  by  the  Frankfordiaris,  359 — condemned  by 
the  Asians,  361 — denounced  by  the  general  council  of  Ephesus, 
ib. — its  declension,  362. 

Pelagius,  an  Englishman,  author  of  the  heresy  called  Pelagianism, 
accused  in  the  synods  of  Jerusalem  and  Diospolis,  355 — acquitted 
in  the  latter,  ib. — anathematized  by  the  Carthaginian  prelacy,  356. 

Penance,  an  improved  species  of,  37. 

Pepin,  King,  assists  Stephen  II.  agaim>e  Astolf,  King  of  Lombardy, 
214 — crowned  in  751,  king  of  France,  216. 

Perjured  Pontiffs,  list  of  119,  122. 

Perjury,  seventeen  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  guilty  of,  119 — list  of 
them,  ib.  and  sqq. 

Perpetua,  her  vision,  496. 

Persecuting  councils,  251. 

Persecution,  three  periods  of,  first  period,  239 — second,  241 — third, 
263 — chief  victims  of,  244 — enjoined  by  pontiffs,  as  well  as  theo- 
logians, 264 — persecution  of  paganism,  243 — of  heresy,  245 — 
persecutions  in  Germany,  266 — in  the  Netherlands,  267— Spain, 
ib. — in  France,  ib. — in  England,  272. 

Peter-pence,  what  they  were,  222 


INDEX.  597 

Peter,  St.  evidence  of  his  visit  to  Rome,  not  historical,  but  tradi- 
tional, 68 — as  not  a  single  hint  is  afforded  on  this  subject  by 
himself,  nor  by  Luke,  James,  Jude,  Paul,  or  John,  65 — nor  is  it 
mentioned  by  the  Apostolic  men,  Clemens,  Barnabas,  Hermas, 
Ignatius,  or  Polycarp,  ib. — the  fiction  began  to  obtain  credit  about 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  ib. — Irenaeus  the  first  who  recorded 
it,  ib. — great  discordancy  as  to  the  length  of  his  episcopacy,  72 — 
story  of  his  episcopacy  seems  to  have  originated  with  Papias,  73. 

Philarge,  see  Alexander  V. 

Philip  II.  king  of  Spain,  kindles  the  fires  of  persecution  at  Vallado- 
lid  and  Seville,  and  consigns  the  professors  of  Protestantism  to 
the  flames,  267. 

Philip  VI.  king  of  France,  threatens  to  roast  pope  John  XXII.  if 
he  do  not  retract  his  heresy  respecting  disembodied  souls,  107. 

Philip  and  Mary,  issued  a  commission  for  the  burning  of  heretics,  272. 

Philippicus,  emperor  of  Constantinople,  convenes  a  council  for  the 
purpose  of  substituting  Monothelitism  for  Catholicism,  351 — com- 
piles a  confession,  352 — is  driven  from  his  throne,  ib. 

Phocas,  a  centurion,  assassinates  the  royal  family  arid  seizes  the 
throne,  184 — instances  of  his  cruelty,  ib. — is  celebrated  for  his 
piety  and  benignity  by  Gregory,  ib. — title  of  universal  bishop 
conferred  by,  ib. 

Pinytus,  Bp.  of  Crete,  urges  the  necessity  of  abstinence  from 
matrimony  on  the  clergy  of  his  diocese,  but  is  convinced  of  his 
error  by  Dionysius,  Bp.  of  Corinth,  530. 

Pisan  council,  dismiss  Gregory  and  Benedict  from  the  papacy,  and 
appoint  Alexander  V.,  89 — forbid  all  Christians  to  obey  the  two 
former,  232 — its  universality  denied  by  some,  133 — the  second 
council  of  acknowledged  by  the  French  in  opposition  to  the  fifth 
of  the  Lateran,  135. 

Pitt,  William,  question  of,  to  the  universities  of  Louvain,  Salamanca, 
and  Valladolid,  whether  persecution  were  a  principle  of  Roman- 
ism, 274. 

Pius  IV.  [J.  A.  Medici  or  Medichino]  pope,  1559,  offers  to  confirm 
the  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  if  Queen  Elizabeth  would 
acknowledge  the  pontifical  supremacy,  and  the  British  nation  join 
the  Romish  communion,  32 — writes  to  her  and  professes  an 
anxiety  for  her  eternal  welfare,  and  the  establishment  of  her  royal 
dignity,  ib. — his  overtures  for  union  refused  by  the  Queen  and 
and  nation,  ib. — deposes  and  anathematizes  the  Queen,  225 — 
annuls  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  her,  284. 

Pius  VII.  though  in  captivity,  excommunicates  and  anathematizes 
Bonaparte,  235. 

Plato,  taught  the  theory  of  purgatory,  515 — remarks  on  his  style, 
&c.  ib. 

Platonic  philosophy,  Trinitarian  ism,  in  a  mis-shapen  form,  appears 
in,  296. 

Polish  Confession,  formed  in  the  General  Synod  of  Sendomir  in 
1570,  and  recognized  through  Poland,  Lithuania,  and  Samogitia,  26. 

Pontiffs,  perjured,  list  of,  119,  122 — profligacy  of,  5*71. 


598  INDEX. 

Pontifical  Infallibility,  boasted  unity  of  pretended  Catholicism  has 
on  this,  as  on  every  other  question  diverged  into  a  medley  of 
jarring  opinions  and  contending  systems,  187 — its  object,  189— its 
form,  190 — its  uncertainty,  191. 

Pontifical  maxims,  280. 

Pontifical  royalty,  215. 

Pontifical  succession,  difficulty  of,  whence  it  arises,  68 — historical 
variations  respecting,  69,  sq.  electoral  variations  on  the  same 
subject,  74.  sq. 

Pope,  his  presidency,  152 — his  sovereignty  or  despotism,  154 — his 
supposed  equality  with  God,  157 — his  alleged  superiority  to  God, 
159,  sq.  when  first  raised  to  royalty,  214. 

Popery,  never  embraced  by  more  than  a  fifth  part  of  Christendom, 
66 — may  be  compared  to  a  field  of  wheat,  overrun  with  tares,  48 
— nothing,  perhaps,  presents  a  more  striking  image  of  than  a 
person  labouring  under  a  dreadful  disorder,  ib. 

Pope,  see  Adrian  IV.  221-2 — Alexander  V.  90 — Alexander  VI. 
117-1 8— Alexander  VII.  372— Anacletus,  70,  73— Benedict  VI. 
110— Benedict  VII.  Ill— Boniface  VII.  110— Boniface  VIII. 
113,  155 — Clemens,  70 — Clement,  VII.  81,  284 — Clement  IX. 
372— Clement  X.  372— Clement  XI.  373— Felix,  74,  76— Greg- 
ory II.  215— Gregory  VI.  81— Gregory  VII.  217,  280,  284— 
Gregory  IX.  281,  285 — Innocent  I.  255 — Innocent  III.  171,  186, 
223,  256— Innocent  IV.  248 — Innocent  X.  281 — Innocent  XI.  373 
—John  XII.  109— John  XIV.  Ill— John  XXII.  105— John 
XXIII.  114— Leo  IX.  168— Leo  X.  265— Liberius,  74,  302— 
Nicholas  I.  176— Nicholas  V.  97— Paul  III.  224,  284— Paul  IV. 
155,  281— Pius  IV.  32,  225,  284— Silverius,  76,  77— Silvester,  79 
Sixtus  IV.  116— Stephen  78,  79— Urban  II.  280— Urban  VI.  81, 
82,  84 — Vigilius,  77,  104. 

Posen,  synod  of,  compact  between  the  Reformed  of  Germany, 
France,  &c.  confirmed  at,  30. 

Post-Nicene  Fathers,  may,  without  regret,  be  consigned  to  the 
Vatican  to  rust  with  the  lumber  of  a  thousand  years,  47. 

Prayers  for  the  dead,  remarks  on,  510 — argument  from,  in  favor  of 
purgatory,  refuted,  511. 

Predestination,  gratuitous  taught  by  St.  Augustine,  362 — a  fertile 
source  of  contest  among  the  French  clergy,  ib. 

Priesthood,  marriage  of,  testimonies  to,  531. 

Priests,  profligacy  of  the  Romish,  565. 

Prignano,  see  Urban  VI. 

Prison,  different  interpretations  of  the  word,  as  used  by  St.  Peter, 
505-6. 

Proterios,  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  assassinated  by  the  populace, 
and  his  mangled  body  dragged  through  the  city,  328-9. 

Protestant  Faith,  antiquity  of,  easily  shown,  46. 

Protestantism,  its  name  originated  in  the  sixteenth  century,  46 — is 
contained  in  the  word  of  God,  ib. — its  theology  to  be  found  in  the 
early  fathers,  ib. — its  principles  taught  in  the  ecclesiastical  pro- 
ductions of  three  hundred  years  after  the  Christian  era,  47 — a 
striking  image  of,  48. 


INDEX.  599 

Protestant  name,  its  origin,  46. 

Protestant  theology,  contained  in  the  word  of  Gz>d,  46. 

Protestants,  persecution  of  by  Charles  the  Fifth,  266  —  massacre  of 

the  French;  268. 

Public  women,  number  of,  who  attended  the  Constantine  council,  199. 
Purgatory,  what  it  is  in  the  Romish  theology,  490  —  its  situation,  491 

—  its  punishments,  492  —  496  —  destitute   of    scriptural    authority, 
497  —  admissions,  ib.  —  Romish  arguments  from  Scripture  refuted, 
499  —  506  —  destitute  of  traditional  authority,  507  —  admissions,  ib. 

—  formed  no  part  in  the  faith  of  Christian  antiquity,  514  —  pagan 
and  Jewish   purgatory,   516  —  Mahometan,   ib.  —  its   introduction, 
517  —  its  slow  progress,  519  —  completed  by  the  schoolmen,  524. 

Pythagoeran  philosophy,   Trinitarianism   appears  in   a  mis-shapeB 
form,  in,  263. 


Quesnel,  (Pasquier)  remark  on  his  "  Reflections,"  373  —  controversy 

on,  ib.  374,  475. 
Quinsextan,   or   Trullan   council,  enjoins    celibacy  on   bishops,  but 

permits  the  inferior  clergy  to  marry  before  ordination,  and  after- 

ward to  enjoy  connubial  society,  551. 

R 

Raban,  archbishop  of  Mentz,  opposes  Gottescalcus,  363  —  seems  to 

have  admitted  election,  but  denied  reprobation,  ib.  —  acknowledged 

predestination  to  life,  but  not   to  death,  ib.  —  misrepresents  his 

adversary,  and  characterises  him  as  a  perverter  of  religion,  and  a 

forger  of  heresy,  ib. 
Rachel,  Sister,  suffers  crucifixion  in  order  to  exhibit  a  lively  image 

of  the  Saviour's  passion,  42. 
Rack,  the,  used  by  the  Inquisition,  260. 
Ratramnus,  see  Bertramn. 
Recusants,  a  faction  of  the  French  clergy,  who  condemned  the  bull 

Unigenitus,  375,  376. 

Reformation,  the,  era  anci  influence  of,  294. 
Reformers,  doctrinal  unity   of,    apparent   in   their  confessions    of 

faith,  25. 
Regeneration,  the  same  substantial  change  communicated  to  men 

in,  as  to  the  elements  of  the  communion,  403. 
Regulatus,  a  self-flagellator,  37. 
Religious  liberty  of  the  first  three  centuries,  241. 
Remission  of  sin,  as  mentioned  by  St.  James,  remark  on,  448. 
Revelation,  its  truths  contained  in  the  early  fathers,  46. 
Rheims,  college  of,  remedy  commended  by  for  the  extinction  of 

heresy,  264. 

Rhemists,  advocate  unconditional  election,  336. 
"  Rock,"  a  variety  of  interpretations  of  the  word,  161,  sq. 
Roger  (Peter)  see  Gregory  XI. 

Roman  ritual  extends  the  spirit  of  persecution  even  to  the  dead,  266. 
Romanism,  its  superstition  forms  no   part  of  Christianity,  48  —  de- 

forms the  gospel,  and  counteracts  its  utility,  ib.  —  a  striking  image 


600  INDEX. 

of,  ib. — boasted  unity  of,  displayed  in  the  diversifiec^councils  and 

confessions  of  the  fourth  century,  309. 

Romish  church,  immorality  of,  201,  sq. — general  apostacy  of,  305. 
Romish  priesthood,  in  every   age  the   fosterer  of  fanaticism   and 

absurdity,  34 — impiety,  malevolence,  inhumanity,  &c.  of,  108 — 

profligacy  of,  571. 
Rospigliosi  (Guil.  de)  see  Clement  XI. 

S 

Sacramental  elements  accounted  signs,  figures,  and  emblems,  397, 
399 — retain  their  own  nature  and  substance,  398 — nourish  the 
human  body,  399 — manducation  of  by  the  papist,  421. 

Sacramentarian  controversy,  account  of,  29,  sq. 

Salamanca,  university  of,  proscribes  Molinism,  367. 

Sardica,  canons  of,  advocated  by  Hincmar,  the  celebrated  French 
bishop,  180 — council  of  declare  for  Athanasius  and  Trinitarian- 
ism,  300. 

Saxon  confession,  issued  in  the  Synod  of  Wittemberg  and  presented 
in  1551  to  the  council  of  Trent,  26. 

Scandinavian  mythology,  some  faint  traces  of  the  Trinity  exhibited 
in,  296. 

Schism,  great  western  schism,  81 — 93. 

Schisms  in  the  papacy,  the  second  began  in  the  reigns  of  Liberius 
and  Felix,  74 — the  seventh  distinguished  the  reigns  of  Silverius 
and  Vigilius,  76 — the  thirteenth  disgraced  the  papacy  of  Formo- 
sus  and  Sergius,  78 — the  nineteenth  deformed  the  reigns  of 
Benedict,  Silvester,  and  John,  79 — the  twenty-ninth  troubled  the 
reigns  of  Urban,  Boniface,  Innocent,  Gregory,  Clement,  and 
Benedict,  81 — the  thirtieth  troubled  the  reigns  of  Eugenius  and 
Felix,  93. 

Schoolmen,  their  nonsense  and  hair-breadth  distinctions  on  transub- 
stantiation,  415 — purgatory,  where  placed  by,  491. 

Scientia  Media,  see  Middle  Science. 

Scottish  confession,  composed  by  Knox  in  1560,  and  ratified  by 
Parliament,  27 — this  however  sunk  into  neglect  on  the  appearance 
of  a  formulary  compiled  at  Westminster,  which  was  ratified  by 
the  Scottish  Parliament  in  1649  and  1690,  ib. 

Scotus  (Duns)  severely  treated  by  the  Valentinians,  364 — his 
production  on  election  a  distinguished  specimen  of  folly  and 
extravagance,  ib. — opposes  Pascasius,  407. 

Sectarianism,  its  prevalence  since  the  rise  of  Protestantism,  33. 

Seleucia,  council  of,  its  meeting  in  the  year  359,  p.  309 — how  char- 
acterized by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  ib. — its  proceedings,  ib. 

Self-flagellation,  by  whom  introduced  and  practised,  37. 

Semi-Arians,  assert  the  similarity  of  the  Son,  299 — dispute  with  the 
Arians,  ib. 

Sendomir,  formal  ecclesiastical  union  between  the  reformed  of 
Germany,  France,  &c.  effected  at,  in  1570,  p.  30. 

Sergius,  opposes  Formosus  in  the  papacy,  but  is  expelled,  78. 

Sigismund,  emperor,  guarantees  a  safe-conduct  to  Huss,  288 — but 
notwithstanding,  consigns  him  to  the  duke  of  Bavaria,  290 — 
remarks  on  this  breach  of  faith,  ib  — see  Huss. 


INDEX.  601 

Sign,  changing  of,  does  not  change  the  signification,  46 — instance 

of,  ib. 
Silverius,  pope,  elected  in  536  by  simony,  76 — is  soon  supplanted  by 

Vigilius  by  similar  means,  ib. — accused  by  false  witnesses  of  a 

design  to  betray  the  city,  77 — is  banished  to  Palmaria,  where  he 

dies,  ib. 
Silvester,  is  substituted  in  the  papacy  for  Benedict,  79 — is   soon 

expelled,  ib. — re-asserts  his  right,  and  takes  possession  of  the 

Vatican,  80. 

Similarity  of  the  Son,  asserted  by  the  Semi-Arians,  299. 
Simon,  St.  different  statements  as  to  his  episcopacy,  71. 
Sin,  remission  of,   as  mentioned  by  St.  James,  remark  on,  448 — 

against  the  Holy  Ghost,  observations  on,  500. 
Siricius,  pope,  his  decretal  addressed  to  Himerius,  contains  the  first 

general  interdiction  of  clerical  matrimony,  513. 
Sirmians,  their  three  forms  of  faith,  301. 
Sixtus  IV.  [Francis  d'Albescola  della  Rovere,]  elected  to  the  papacy 

in  1471,  his  character,  116 — established  brothels  in  Rome,  117. 
Slevin,  Dr.  his  quibbling,  &c.  in  the  Maynooth  examination,  227. 
"  So  as,"  remarks  on  the  phrase,  504. 
Solicitation,  sacerdotal  and  monkish,  in  Spain,  description  of,  568 — 

so  prevalent  as  to  demand  pontifical  interposition,  ib. 
Son  of  God,  his  deity  and  humanity  united  in  one  person,  in  the 

theology  of  Christian  antiquity,  311 — his  divinity  acknowledged 

in   opposition  to   Arianism,  and  his  humanity  in  contradiction  to 

Gnosticism  and  Apollinarianism,  ib. — his  natures  confounded  by 

Eutyches,  as  his  person  was  divided  by  Nestorius,  312 — opinion 

of  the  Jacobites  or  Monophysites,  313 — controversies  upon  his 

natures  by  the  councils  of  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  Chalcedon, 

&c.  315-338 — one  will  and  one  operation  ascribed  to  him  by  the 

Monothelites,  339. 

Sophronius.  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  opposes  Monothelitism,  342. 
Sorbonnian  faculty  propose  to  modify  the  doctrine  of  transubstan- 

tiation,  32. 
Southcott,  (Joanna)   her N mania  eclipsed  by  the  dreams  of  Beata, 

Clara,  and  Nativity,  34. 
Spain,  remained  free  of  pontifical  dominion  till  the  beginning  of  the 

ninth  century,  180. 
Stephen  II.  applies  to  King  Pepin  for   assistance  against  Astolf, 

King  of  Lombardy,  214. 
Stephen  VI.  succeeds  Formosus  in  the  papacy  in  896,  and  commits 

atrocities  on  his  dead  body,  78 — rescinds  his  acts  and  declares  his 

ordinations  irregular  and  invalid,  ib. — is  immured  in  a  dungeon, 

and  strangled,  79. 
Stephen,  Abp.  of  Petrarca,  his  declaration  that  Leo  possessed  power 

above  all  powers,  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  159,  160. 
Stews,  propriety  of  tolerating,  advocated  by  Carlerius,  199. 
Suction,  the  second  step  to  the  defalcation  of  the  cup,  in  the  sacra 

ment,  434 — its  design,  ib. 
Suicide,"  approbation  of,  549 — suicide  of  virgins  commended,  550 


602 


INDEX. 


Sunisactan  women,  who  infested  the  habitations  of  the  unmarried 
clergy,  canon  directed  against  them,  544. 

Sunisactanism  or  domesticism,  an  evasion  of  the  injunction  of  cleri- 
cal celibacy,  553. 

Superstition,  nearly  as  old  as  religion,  and  originated  in  the  remotest 
period  of  time,  in  the  darkness  and  profanity  of  the  antediluvian 
world,  45. 

Supremacy,  four  variations  in  the  papal  supremacy,  152,  153 — si- 
lence of  tradition  concerning,  172 — unknown  to  antiquity,  174 — 
ascribed  to  other  sees,  besides  Rome,  175 — asserted  by  false  de- 
cretals, 177 — rejection  of,  in  various  countries,  179.  sq. 

Swedenborgianism,  fanaticism  of,  rivalled  by  the  extravagance  of 
Montus,  34. 

Swiss  confession,  see  Helvetian  confession. 

Switzerland,  profligacy  of  her  clergy,  570. 

Symbolical  worship,  a  variation  from  ecclesiastical  antiquity,  466 — 
opposed  by  synodal,  episcopal,  pontifical,  and  imperial  authority, 
471. 

Symmachus  excommunicates  Anastasius  for  heresy,  328. 

Syrian  Church,  its  antiquity,  64 — purity  and  simplicity  of  its  theo- 
logy, ib, — its  opposition  to  popery  and  agreement  with  protestant- 
ism, 65. 

Syrianism,  its  antiquity  and  identity  with  protestantism  acknowledged 
by  Dr.  Buchanan,  66. 


Teresia,  merits  particular  attention  for  her  self-flagellation,  37 — her 

body,   circumfused  in   a  fragrant  fluid,  remains  the  undecayed 

object  of  religious  worship,  38. 
Tertullian,  the  first  who  mentions  the  custom  of   paying   for   the 

dead,  512. 
Tetrapolitan   confession,  why  so  named,  26 — compiled    by  Bucer 

and  Capito,  ib. — presented  in  1530  to  the  Emperor  of  Germany,  ib. 

Text  of  Scripture  : — 


OLD  TESTAMENT. 

GENESIS. 


Chap. 

xl.  12,  18 

. 

xli.  56,  27 

. 

LEVITICUS. 

KXVI.  1    . 

. 

JUDGES. 

xviii.  24     . 

. 

2  KINGS. 

xviii.  4  . 

. 

1 

CHRONICLES. 

xi.  19 

t            f 

Page. 
396 
396 


461 


424 


462 


395 


Chap, 
xxvi.  23 
xxvii.  9 
xxviii.  27 


ex.  1 


viii.  8 
viii.  10 


liii.  3 


i.  13 


PSALM. 
JOB. 

ISAIAH. 

•  «  • 

HABAKKUK. 


Page. 

462 
,     462 

462 

499 

519 
519 

402 
402 

206 


INDEX. 


60? 


APOCRYPHA. 

Chap. 

Page. 

2  MACCAB. 

xx.  28    . 

169 

Chap. 

Page. 

446 

xii.  40     . 

512 

xxviii.  15 

72 

xii.  43         .         . 

.     511 

ROMANS 

xii.  44    . 

511 

iv.  13         ... 

.     430 

xiv.  41        ... 

.     511 

xiii.  1     . 

212 

xv.  33     . 

512 

69 

NEW  TESTAMENT. 

1  CORINTHIANS. 

MATTHEW. 

403 

ii.  8,  19  . 

169 

X.  4     . 

395,  396 

v.  26           ... 

.     493 

xi.  27     ... 

430 

v.  25       . 

499 

xi.  28         ... 

.     425 

v.  17           ... 

.     430 

xii.  27    . 

396 

viii.  14    . 

529 

xv.  25 

.     499 

xii.  32        ... 

.     498 

2  CORINTHIANS. 

xiii.  19,  37—40      . 

396 

xi.  5 

170 

xiii.  29        ... 

.     264 

xii.  11        ... 

.     170 

xvi.  16    . 

227 

GALATIANS. 

xvi.  18        ...     161,  163 

ii.  11       ... 

170 

xxiv.  28          ... 

465 

iii.  16         ... 

.     430 

xxvi.  27     ... 

.     425 

EPHESIANS. 

xxvi.  28          ... 

395 

iv.  12      ... 

396 

xxvi.  51  52, 

.     240 

COLOSSIANS. 

MARK. 

i.  24  . 

.     396 

vi.  13      . 

446,7 

iv.           .         . 

69 

xi.  28         ... 

.     430 

xiv.  23    .         .    •    . 
xiv.  47        ... 

425 
.     240 

2  THESSALONIANS. 

ii.  4  .         .         .         .         .158 

xvi.  15    . 

169 

1  TIMOTHY. 

iii.  4        ... 

531 

LUKE. 

ix.  56         ... 
xii.  14     . 

.     240 
212 

2  TIMOTHY. 

i.  18 

499 

xiii.  11       .         .         ! 

69 

.     44o 

xx.  2 

430 

TITUS. 

xxii.  51       ... 

.     240 

iii.  2,  12 

529 

xxiv.  44          .         .         . 

430 

iv.  3  . 

.     529 

xxiv.  47 

.     169 

HEBREWS. 

JOHN. 

xi.  21     ... 

463,  464 

x,  7 

395 

xii.  14         ... 

.     206 

XV.   1               ... 

.     395 

JAMES. 

xvii.  16           ... 

212 

v.  14       . 

446 

xviii.  10,  36 

.     240 

v.  14,  15     ... 

.     447 

xxi.  16  . 

169 

1  PETER. 

ACTS. 

V.  2 

169 

i.  26  . 

.     170 

V.  13               ... 

.       72 

vi.  1-6   . 

170 

REVELATIONS. 

xv.  1-22    . 

.     170 

V.  5 

395 

604  IXDEX. 

Theondrian  or  Deivirilian  opeiaticn,  what,  339. 

Theodora,  Empress,  friendly  to  Monophysitism,  7(3 — aims  to  degrade 
Mennas,  the  Byzantine  Patriarch,  who  adhered  to  the  Chalcedo- 
nian  faith,  77 — and  to  restore  Anthimus,  Theodosius  and  Severus 
deposed  for  their  Monophysitism,  ib. — applies  to  Silverius  to 
assist  her,  but  is  refused,  ib. — turns  her  attention  to  Vigilius,  who 
is  bribed  by  her,  ib. — Suborns  Belisarius  to  expel  Silverius  and 
raise  Vigilius,  and  succeeds,  ib. 

Theodora,  a  courtezan,  raises  John  X.  to  the  papacy,  109. 

Theodorus,  of  Pharan,  the  author  of  Monothelitism,  339 

Theophylactus,  see  Benedict  IX. 

Thurcal,  adventure  of,  as  related  by  Mattnew  Paris,  494. 

Tolosan  Chronicle  : — contains  an  account  of  the  processes  against 
the  Albigensians,  50. 

Torquemala,  on  being  made  Inquisitor-General,  burned  alive  two 
thousand  sons  of  heresy,  262. 

Tradition  :  its  silence  concerning  the  papal  supremacy,  172. 

Transubstantiation  not  accounted  by  the  friends  of  popery  as  essent- 
ial in  their  system,  31 — instances  of  fluctuations  on  the  subject, 
31,  32 — diversity  of  opinions  on,  415 — unscriptural,  387 — not 
supported  by  John,  ch.  vi.  389,  393 — nor  by  Matt.  xxvi.  26,  28, 
395 — not  taught  by  the  Fathers,  401,  403 — its  introduction,  405 — 
Pacasian  controversy  on,  407 — Berengarian,  409,  414 — supported 
by  pretended  miracles,  417 — absurdity  of,  419,  20 — its  cannibal- 
ism, 421,  424. 

Trent :  her  disciplinarian  canons  rejected  in  France  and  in  part  of 
Ireland,  33,  132 — and  even  in  Spain  admitted  only  so  far  as  con- 
sistent with  regal  authority,  33 — rejection  of  the  council  of,  131 — 
reception  of,  133 — council  of,  patronized  persecution,  265 — cate- 
chism of,  remark  on,  526 — language  used  by,  concerning  the 
administration  of  the  sacrament,  433 — declaration  on  extreme 
unction,  442. 

Trinitarianism,  the  faith  of  Christian  antiquity,  296 — and  may  be 
discovered  in  the  annals  of  gentilism  and  philosophy,  ib. — as  in 
the  Persian,  Egyptian,  Grecian,  Roman,  and  Scandinavian  my- 
thology, ib. — and  in  the  Orphic  theology,  and  in  the  Zoorastrian, 
Pythagorean,  and  Platonic  philosophy,  ib. 

Trullan,  or  Quinsextan  council,  its  canon  on  matrimony,  551. 

Type  or  Formulary,  issued  by  the  Emperor  Constans,  345 — purport 
of,  ib. — in  what  it  differed  frrm  the  Ecthesis,  ib. 

Tynan  council,  pronounces  sentence  of  excommunication  and  ban- 
ishment against  Athanasius,  299. 


Ulloa  (Ant.  de)  his  frightful  picture  of  the  Peruvian  priesthood,  572. 

Ulric,  history  of,  and  remedy  adopted  by  him,  to  preserve  conti- 
nence, 536. 

Unction,  extreme  not  a  sacrament,  65 — of  what  it  consists,  441 — 
variations  in  its  effects,  ib. — disagreement  on  its  institution,  442 
a  variation  from  scriptural  unction,  443 — form  of,  444 — apostolic 
and  popish  unctions  differ  in  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  to  be 


INDEX.  605 

administered,  445 — and  in  the  end  or  effect,  446 — extreme  unction 
a  variation  from  tradition,  451 — traditional  evidence  for,  453  - 
history  of,  455. 

Unigenius,  observations  on  the  bull  issued  by  Clement  XI.,  208. 

Universal  bishop,  title  of,  conferred  by  Phocas,  183. 

University,  Parisian,  1589,  declared  the  French  entirely  freed  from 
tneir  oath  of  Allegiance  to  their  king,  Henry  III,  280. 

"  Until,"  in  scriptural  language,  what  the  word  denotes,  500. 

Urban  II.  [Eudes  or  Odo,]  pope  1088,  declares  that  subjects  are  by 
no  authority  bound  to  observe  the  fealty  which  they  swear  to  a 
Christian  prince  who  withstands  God  and  the  saints,  and  contemns 
their  precepts,  280 — commands  the  separate  reception  of  the 
Lord's  body  and  blood,  431. 

Urban  VI.  [Bartolomo  di  Prignano,]  pope  1378,  divides  Christendom 
with  Clement,  81 — his  summary  treatment  of  seven  cardinals,  83 
a  few  specimens  of  his  ability  in  the  art  of  cursing,  84. 

Usurpation  of  the  popes,  185. 


Valentinian,  Emperor,  enactment  of  a  law  by,  forbidding  monks  or 
ecclesiastics  to  accept  any  donation  or  legacy  from  maids,  matrons, 
orphans  or  widows,  213. 

Variations  as  to  the  pontifical  succession :  historical,  69,  sq. — electo- 
ral, 74. 

Vienna,  general  council  of,  declared  that  the  Emperor  was  bound 
to  the  pope  by  an  oath  of  fealty,  231. 

Vigilius,  [537]  assumes  the  pontifical  authority,  through  simony,  76 
— his  character,  ib. — his  papacy  presents  a  scene  of  fluctuation 
unknown  in  the  annals  of  protestantism,  105 — shifted  his  ground 
six  times,  ib. — sanctioned  Eutychianism,  and  afterwards  retracted, 
ib. — withstood  Justinian's  edict,  and  afterwards  recanted,  ib. — 
shielded  Ibas,  Theodoret,  and  Theodorus,  and  afterwards  con- 
firmed the  general  council,  which  condemned  them  for  blasphemy 
and  heresy,  ib. 

Virgin  Mary,  absurd  eulogies  of,  547,  etc. 

Virginity,  admiration  of,  when  it  began,  533 — reason  of  this,  534 — 
second  reason  for  the  preference  of,  538. 


Wake,  Bp.  his  correspondence  with  Dr.  Dupin  on  the  subject  of  an 
union  between  the  English  and  French  Church,  32. 

Waldensianism,  its  theatre,  Western  or  European  Christendom,  49 
— its  patrons,  ib. — its  principal  branches,  ib. — antiquity  of  beyond 
all  question,  51 — in  anticipation,  a  system  of  the  purest  Protes- 
tantism many  ages  before  the  Reformation,  53 — portrait  of,  54. 

Waldensians,  spread  through  nearly  every  country,  51,  52 — their 
bravery,  53 — portrait  of  them  by  Alexander,  54 — their  confession* 
show  the  conformity  of  their  principles  to  the  Reformation,  55— 
their  morality  corresponded  with  the  purity  of  their  faith,  53 — 


606  INDEX. 

their  piety,  benevolence,  and  holiness  have  extorted  the  appro- 
bation of  friend  and  foe,  ib. — notwithstanding  the  persecution  of 
Romanism,  still  exists,  58 — persecution  of  them,  249. 

Wido,  Marquis  of  Tuscany,  deposes  and,  in  all  probability,  strangles 
Pope  John  the  Tenth,  109. 

Wine,  sacramental,  what  accounted  by  the  Manicheans,  433 — by 
the  Latins,  ib. — why  curtailed  by  the  Constantine  council  in  the 
communion  of  the  laity,  436 — intinction  and  suction  two  methods 
used  in  partaking  it,  434. 

Wittemberg  confession,  composed  by  Brent  published  in  1552,  26. 


Xavier,  (Francis)  the  Indian  apostle,  uses  an  \ron  whip  to  flagellate 
himself,  37. 


Zanzal,  or  Jacob,  restorer  of  the  demonstration  called  Jacobites,  Jv 
Zeno,  publishes  the  Hrenoticon,  334 — his  design  in  doing  so,  ib. 
Zisca,  a  Bohemian  general,  the  ablest,  though  blind,  that  ever  took 

the  field,  437. 
Zoroastrian  philosophy,  Trinitarianism  appears  in  a  mis-shapen  form 

in,  296. 
Zozimus,   Pelagianism  at  first  approved    by,  357 — but    afterwards 

anathematizes  Pelagius  and  Celestius,  360 — a  profound  adept  in 

the  art  of  cursing,  361 — lived  a  tyrant  and  died  a  saint,  ib. 
Zuinglians,  at  the  conference  at  Marpurg,  1529,  admit  the  presence 

of  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  in  the  sacrament,  and  their  recep- 

tion  by  those  who  approach  the  communion,  31. 
Zuinglians   and   Lutherans,   conference   between,  at    Marpurg,   iu 

1529,  29 — were  agreed  on  all  topics  but  the  communion,  ib.— 

but  even  on  this,  though  a  formal  union  was  not  affected,  there 

existed  a  peaceful  and  amiable  concord,  ib. 
Zuinglius,  appears  at  the  conference  held  at  Marpurg  in  1529,  29. 


THE 


YC  44009 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


